One of the interesting aspects of the Democratic Presidential primaries has been that, whilst older women voting in the primaries are supporting Hillary Clinton, younger women prefer Barack Obama. The Chicago Tribune reports that the younger women who support Obama are also more likely to be tertiary educated, and more likely to identify as “liberal” rather than “moderate” or “conservative”.
This is an interesting phenomenon. Younger women, who are tertiary educated, identify as “liberal” in the US political context, and are sufficiently politically engaged to voluntarily register as Democrats and vote in the primaries, could be expected to be the demographic most likely to have strongly feminist sensibilities. And yet they are voting for Obama, and not for the great symbolic light on the feminist hill of “a woman in the White House”.
Feminist bloggers Kimberle Crenshaw and Eve Ensler offer a spirited defence of young feminists who are supporting Obama, and of their own support for Obama. The article, and the subsequent blog comments, reveal something of the nastiness which the Clinton/Obama contest has generated. Amongst other things, it also highlights the bitterness of the generational war between some (by no means all) feminists of older generations, and young women who, the dreary mantra would have it, “don’t understand”.
According to Crenshaw and Ensler:
Young feminists have been vocal and strong in critiquing the claim that a vote for Obama represents some form of youthful naiveté, a desire to win the approval of men, or a belief that sexism no longer factors into their lives. While paying respect to those women who carried the banner for so many years, these young women have reminded us that feminism is not static but evolutionary, changing in content, scope and tenor as new generations elevate their concerns and aspirations. And while we agree that this “either/or” brand of feminism fails to capture the imagination and hopes of countless numbers of women who refuse to entrust this capital into the hands of a candidate just because she is a woman, we think it important to add that this is not simply an intergenerational difference at work here. At issue is a profound difference in seeing feminism as intersectional and global rather than essentialist and insular. Women have grappled with these questions in every feminist wave, struggling to see feminism as something other than a “me too” bid for power whether it be in the family, the party, the race or the state.
This draws the following predictable response in one comment:
Young women don’t understand the price women have paid for the opportunities they have now. They don’t understand that any ceiling broken by a woman, benefits every woman.
In an interesting, and unequivocally pro-choice, column in yesterday’s Age, younger feminist Larissa Dubecki makes the following observation, including an unflattering but perhaps not totally inapt comparison:
The surprise package in the whole Juno blow-up is that vocal pro-choicers have to trumpet their profound discomfort with the fact that the heroine isn’t straight back in her cheerleading leotard after a discreet visit to the clinic.
These self-described old-school feminists are busy wheeling out the accusation that contemporary young women are taking their hard-won rights for granted. Of course they are. That’s what young women do.
These battle-weary commentators could choose to quietly smile — “ahhh, the youth of today, how naive they are but at least they have the full range of options available to them, now where’s my whisky”, etc — instead of banging on like the worst elements of the RSL who, if they had their way, would have us all up at dawn saluting flagpoles to remember the sacrifices of those who went before us.
And yes, there’s bound to be some of the old “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance” proselytising from the old guard. But I’ll bet my limited edition, white vinyl version of Madonna’s Like a Virgin that there would be picket lines and action aplenty at the first threat to a right fundamental to many an individual woman’s feelings of security over her own destiny.
It’s an awfully patronising view of the supposed uber-impressionability of young women, that a single film or even a handful of films could be instrumental in changing generational attitudes towards reproductive rights.
For my part, I will simply reiterate where the logic of feminist standpoint theory should lead us: if we accept that women understand their social and existential reality better than men, and therefore should be in control of deciding how and why that reality should be changed, and by what means, it is difficult to resist the corollary that young women understand their social and existential reality better than older generations of women, and should therefore be trusted to determine the terms on which they complete the remaining unfinished business of their own emancipation, rather than being conscripted to support a static orthodoxy.
Update: A couple of blogs (Club Troppo and Burning Words) which have linked to or commented on this post have, intentionally or not, imputed to me the phrase “feminist icon” to describe Hillary Clinton. I am satisfied that I have not used that phrase in this post, and I am not aware of having used it on any other occasion to describe Clinton.
You can’t necessarily expect loyalty for past favours, and the older feminists might still have to learn that.
I am reminded (40-odd years back!) of Menzies getting a right bollocking from activist Uni students (it was the start of the 60s protest movement). It climaxed with them singing a chorus (based on ‘There’ll always be an England’)
“There’ll always be a Menzies, while there’s a DLP.”
When asked about it, he said it gave him pause to reflect that most of these protesters wouldn’t be there without his policies (especially Commonwealth Scholarships).
Ditto the young feminists. Gratitude cannot be the sole basis of support. It’s where we are now and where we’re going that counts.
I’m barracking for Barack. He represents a more significant break from the past. The one time Hillary looked good was when the polls were bad and she dropped all her normal controls, showing some passion. She needs to do more of that.
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that no feminist in her right mind would ever have put that argument about Maggie Thatcher. There’s something very limitingly literal-minded about the ‘woman in power’ trope, however powerfully symbolic it might be, but if the woman in question is playing by patriarchal rules and values then the symbolism is completely hollow.
This ‘feminism’s generation wars’ business has always confounded me, especially now that yesterday’s young feminists are today’s middle-aged feminists. Such as they are, said ‘wars’ are being conducted by a small minority of loudmouths of all ages, steeped in the adversarial/hierarchical model that many of us associate with masculinist values, and supported by journalists and editors who know that whipping up intergenerational hostility sells advertising space.
But the rest of us are just getting on with it. My 20-year-old goddaughter and I are singing off the same feminist page, and in that we resemble about 90 per cent of the feminist population.
Interesting aside, the big news networks have just announced projected a big Obama win in Virginia based on early counting and exit poll data. Virginia was the state where Clinton was most likely to cause an upset in today’s primaries.
According to the exit polls it seems that in Virginia Obama has trounced Clinton among women voters. Partially this is a result of the massive turnout of black voters who voted for Obama (he captured 90% of the black vote according to the exit polls).
What Dr. Cat said.
The media loves a fight - much more entertaining than a “debate”. Loves it even more when it’s the chicks fighting each other.
I’m a Clinton supporter, but like most feminists, I imagine, my feelings are pretty much these.
But regardless of whether it’s Clinton or Obama, isn’t it wonderful that it’s hard to choose between two pretty good options, rather than just the lesser of evils?
Whoops, sorry. Here’s some linkage:
[link]
But basically go to any of the major news sites or blogs and they are going on and on and on about it.
It’s going to be really interesting to see if this trend continues with the other two primaries today.
Oh and sorry for being slightly off topic. I just thought that people might want to know.
“This is an interesting phenomenon… they are voting for Obama…”
[laughs so hard, spits milk through nose]
J_P_Z, would you care to amplify?
Anna, that Salon piece was fab. I’ve seen similar opinions all over the blogosphere. I’ve also noticed that a number of well-known feminist bloggers have refused to reveal who they actually voted for.
An important point, Anna. The Democrats now find themselves in a position where whoever they nominate will represent an historic breakthrough (especially if they go on to win the Presidency). Rather than getting into a divisive argument about whether women or African-Americans are more deserving of the breakthrough at this moment in history, the debate should now focus on which of the two contenders has the better package of policies and qualifications.
I don’t care who the next American President is, so long as its either Obama or Hillary. And though I’d prefer Obama, I’m warming to Hillary.
Either one would do for the US what Rudd is doing for us, I reckon.
it is difficult to resist the corollary that young women understand their social and existential reality than older generations of women,
Is there a “better” missing from that sentence?
I thought Dubecki’s article was stupid and rude. (Young feminist) Kate Harding has commented that there’s a lot of fat hatred about, and she hypothesised that that’s because people have fewer outlets now for being gratuitously hateful, hence more fat hatred ’cause it’s still socially acceptable. You can add ageism to that, on the part of some columnists. (The next time I hear someone whining about “greedy Boomers”, I’m driving our 14-year-old station wagon over’em.) Dubecki’s insulting remarks about older feminists trots out cliches like “wheeled out” (as in, our arguments are always wheeled out, like something moribund), we guzzle whisky, etc. Whatevs. Her article was actually inaccurate, and the quotation she used was from a Gen-Xer male film reviewer, but was still magically ascribed to ageing feminists. Maybe the ageing feminists tied him down and made him write it. Or something. Gaaah.
Is there a “better� missing from that sentence?
Yes there is. Corrected now.
Sorry again to go off topic but it’s looking like Obama clean sweep today’s primaries by more than a little margin. In DC it looks as though voters went 3:1 in his favour.
The CNN exit poll data for Maryland is online now and Clinton was basically wiped out in every demographic.
The way things are looking tonight, Clinton’s campaign may be well over before the Texas vote. I notice she gave her “concession” speech in Texas by the way, she should be in Wisconsin like Obama…
Helen’s right: Dubecki’s article is just another hatchet job on feminism as a whole by trying to stir up generational conflicts between second-wavers and third-wavers that don’t in actuality exist.
With the Dems, the sniping seems more to be coming from certain Obamaniacs who are accusing women supporting Clinton of being “vagina-voters” than it’s coming from the Hillshills, from my reading. But what a waste, whoever is sniping at the other team - as Anna says, they’re both impressive, enjoy the dilemma of choosing between two quality candidates.
mick,
I would agree. It looks like an Obama / McCain election. Not a bad outcome overall. Neither of them a religious nutter, a strong Conservative and both with Chicago school economic advisers. Both socially liberal. Looking at the possible outcomes six months ago, I think this is about optimal.
The only major difference on policy grounds is the Iraq question - but in practice I think the outcome is likely to be similar under either.
Helen, whilst I’d agree that there’s a lot of ageism going around, my impression is that there is more of it coming from the older side of the generation divide than the younger in debates about young women and their attitudes to feminism. For example:
The younger US feminists I’m reading daily do seem to favour Obama over Hillary - at least, that’s my impression, I haven’t done stats on how many go this way and how many go that. However, Dubecki’s take on younger feminists’ attitude to “Juno”, “Knocked Up” and the themes therein is completely wrong. I’ve seen brilliant takedowns of those movies and their underlying themes in the US feminist blogosphere, by the likes of Jill at Feministe and her contemporaries, hardly whisky-soaked oldsters. And her statements on abortion are factually wrong too. Just because Bush himself hasn’t directly addressed Roe vs. Wade does not mean that abortion rights aren’t under threat in the US - the States are taking the lead here. And in Australia, it’s still on the criminal code, and we’ve just witnessed a five-year witchhunt against an obstetrician and his team which has ruined lives; not to mention the stealth placement of catholic and other anti-choice organisations in pregnancy counselling services. I feel that Dubecki’s assertion that everything is fine in the garden is largely due to her privilege (young but not too young, white, professionally employed, highly educated and aware of how to work the system) - something of which her young US sisters are much more wary.
Some more (and varied) perspectives here and here.
The more radical feminists, whether young or old, are still favouring Clinton though, for two major reasons: healthcare, and the campaign misogyny. Of course, they probably don’t have the necessary numbers, unless something changes.
Shakesville has a compilation post up - it lists 62 posts they have made over the last 6 months on misogynistic attacks/slurs against Hillary, quite a lot of them directly encouraged by Obama’s “No More Mr Nice Guy” campaign ads.
Did any of y’all stop to think there are two far more important identity allegiances driving the Democratic primaries than sex? Those two are class and ethnicity.
These persons instructing others how they should vote based on allegiance to a movement are pathetic. I see no real difference between
* “If you’re a real feminist you should vote for Hillary” and any of these:
* “If you’re a real Catholic you must vote DLP”
* “If you’re a worker you should vote Communist Party”
* “If you’re a true blue farmer you should vote Country Party”
* “If you love the planet you must vote Green”
* “If you have children you should vote Nuclear Disarmament Party”
* “If you’re a true Christian you should vote for George W Bush”
etc etc etc Simplistic PIFFLE. A voter is entitled to make up her own mind. She may have a dozen different considerations she wants to balance up…. Do the feminists (senior or junior) want Robots In The Ranks?
I thought one of the hopes of feminism was to rise above the old macho, gung-ho, bullying ways…..
Orwell called it GroupThink, didn’t he?? And made it clear enough that the “Think” part was fraudulent.
deary-me!
PS: I have no pro-Barak axe to grind. Equally simplistic is, “If you’re black you must vote for Obama”
“If you’re a real feminist you should vote for Hillaryâ€?…
And if feminists were actually saying that, you might have had a point.
PC
Whilst I agree that simply electing a woman as president doesn’t change things - excpet insofar as it proves that a woman can be president, no small thing - how do signify a break with patriarchal rules?
>
Most patriarchal rules have been done away with in modern societies. Women are enfrachised, can own property etcetera. I wouldn’t say we live in a non-patriarchal society but we don’t live in a patriarchy in the sense that Saudi Arabia is a patriarchy. England was not so different not so long ago. Great and unprecendented changes have been made. Surely one of the major things left is that women now take advantage of the franchise by occupying positions on all levels.
Are hierachies and adverarial conflict inherently masculinist? How do you organize something as simple as a meeting without a hierarchy? How do you make way for the expression of conflicting views if you are not willing to be an adversary. How would a court of law operate without hierarchies and adversaries? What would be the alternative?
>
How do you resolve the conflict between the ‘pro-sex’ and ‘anti-sex’ feminists in the US for example? It seems to me that their positions are irreconcilable. refursing to play this ‘masculinist’ game of adversarial debate would lead ironically to the ‘masculinist’ phenomena of a hierarchy where one or the other group would dominate and silence its, um, adversary.
90%? Mmmm. Is that a reliable figure?
I agree class and ethnicity are at least as important as gender in drving the Democratic primaries. Obama appears to be winning the support of younger ,better educated voters, however, it remains to be seen whether this dynamic stays for the rest of the Primaries.
I don’t think it will. Obama has punctured Clinton’s seeming invincibility, and people will go towards the candidate they think can pile up votes in November. Whether he will be able to in sufficient numbers is an open question, but one thing is sure, if the Republican candidate is promising a ‘hundred years war’, whoever the Dems candidate is, all they have to do is to remind people just how much blood and treasure has already been expended in running cold war redux, against, well, against a person/movment/ideology or something, that appears impossible to properly name, but nevertheless requires trillions of dollars and the blood of thousands of people, to properly ‘nail down’.
Clinton has pitched herself as best able to manage this ‘chimera’. Obama has pitched himself as rejecting the whole adventure. In my view, this now makes him the winner of he Primary. People are sick and tired of a bellicosity that appears to have no real object, and which obscures the issues that are beginning to really bite, which are all domestic, and play on Democrat strengths. It is BO’s to lose.
It’s a guess, based on long and careful observation of my students (late teens, early 20s) over 20+ years and of my feminist colleagues and mates. Whether it’s “reliable” probably depends on what you want to rely on it for.
For all your terminological needs, I can’t recomment Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog highly enough.
(I actually meant ‘recommend’, but ‘recomment’ is also, if accidentally, good.)
I think the major generational conflict between Obama and Clinton is rooted in the Vietnam War and its aftermath. The agendas of Cheney and Rumsfeld seem to have a lot to do with fighting Vietnam all over again. And there seems to be a bitterness between those who stood for the war and those who stood against it that rips the political fabric of the States apart. It has little to do with actual policy.
>
Obama’s beyond that because it happened before he came of age. So he possibly could contribute to a reintegration of the centre in American politics. Perhaps not. All I know is, considering the disasterous adventurism of Bush et al, whoever wins in November will have a very tough job.
Thanks PC I’ve done feminism 101 (and 102). But cool link nevertheless. the benevolent sexism entry reminded me of the Swedish feminist debate re the draft. There was a bit of division. After all many couldn’t see much advantage in being drafted into the army.
>
For myself if we had a draft I’d have to agree that it shouldn’t be sexually discriminatory. However many humans just wouldn’t make good soldiers. No doubt many women would and quite a few lads wouldn’t but wouldn’t be surprised in the ‘not soldier material’ types were showed a significant gender bias.
I think its a cruel choice. Both choices are historic in nature - having a woman or a mixed race person at the helm in the US are both highly symbolic and charged and a departure from the past. One wishes they were seeking nomination in different elections! That said, I think Obama is more of a symbol for the new century. He is simply not as rooted in gender or race as anyone before (indeed in the early stages he was seen as not black enough) and he is speaking to an audience that has grown up with feminism and changes in race relations. I think its this that this is carrying the day for him as opposed to a simple case of his being black and a man. In effect, it seems to me the contest is what any feminist or liberal might wish i.e. let the best person win.
PS: It will be interesting to see how the Democrats stack up against McCain - here after all is a Republican who finally has a war record and who has children in the Armed Forces
But if the polls demonstrate that young women and older women are voting differently then we are looking at something more than a bunch of isolated loudmouths.
If true, here is a phenomenon that must be explained, if for no other reason that Clinton’s inability to swing young white women behind her may well cost her a shot a the presidency.
Perhaps there are some inter-generational tensions between white, self-identified feminists.
Perhaps young white women just don’t like Clinton for reasons that have nothing to do with feminism.
Perhaps young white women just don’t like Clinton for reasons that have nothing to do with feminism.
Correct!
Or maybe they just like Obama more?
Or maybe its’s just relative.
Well done, Katz! First to solve the puzzle in 20 words or less.
I struggle with Obama. I’m such an anti-american that his pulpit prose jars. Nevertheless I would vote for him in a heart-beat.
I don’t like Clinton. I don’t care how civilised her health policy is. The fact remains she is part of the C20 US that sees the globe as its domain. Foreign lands to be exploited. Even assimilated. And, at the end of the day, to see the lands beyond its borders always as its adversaries and often its enemies.
The USA developed, in the previous century, (yes, like many countries) a fortress mentality. With Obama, the US has will get a chance of moving beyond that pre-global nation state neurosis.
Whether it’s literally true or not, the story that George Bush never travelled abroad, and yet became president in the year 2000, sums up the mindset that Obama hopefully can move his country on from.
Raving aside, though, Clinton voted for the invasion Iraq.
No brainer. She must be defeated. She is no equally good choice. Not by a long shot.
He’s impressive. Something of the young Jack Kennedy but more intelligent. An African-American but somewhat apart from other African-Americans who are descended from slaves, which is probably what makes him appeal to whites who still find the ghetto scary and who would not vote for a Jesse Jackson.
BUT
You are correct about the pulpit prose, rhetoric without hard policies is not our way but Americans expect it from their Presidents because they still fondly (and mistakenly) believe that the President is somehow above mere politics as practised in Congress, and that magical speech will produce results.
I do not expect things to be substantially different in the actual Presidential campaign either.
I’d like to see Obama talk in concrete terms about issues like health care, housing and enlightened social policies. I’d like to hear him say how he would mend relationships with the rest of the world, and how he would engage the countries of the Middle East, particularly in the peace process.
It is all dazzling verbal sleight-of-hand. Strip away the verbal gymnastics and so far there is little substance.
And I would still have liked to have seen a woman in the White House, if just for the message it would send to the rest of the world, far more so than having any number of female Presidents and Prime Ministers of smaller and less powerful countries.
Maybe we in Australia will just have to gratefully settle for ABB (Anyone But Bush).
Warmonger’s Lament:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/jerryholbert;_ylt=A0WTUdSUb7NHjCAAgCEHcggF
So because I go regularly to DavidIcke.com,and it seems his a Ron Paul supporter,if all the associated web sites are wrong,I cannot pick out the real reasons for peoples motivations from their public ones.I dont want to think I could influence anyone in the U.S.A. and how to access these Public figures.Feminism, may not sit easily with these characters who support Ron Paul,but ,if you know someone already engaged in war in Iraq or Afghanistan,and still think Feminism is important,then the candidates fail,if relating to these wars is important.Who nows stands alone by,his record is essentially Ron Paul,a disturbed ex -medical Doctor,and thus the other candidates cannot meet that,except Hilary,who hasnt really done much at all.And Bill is a death defying moron,if there ever was one when it comes to 9/11,and episodes so public that to dwell on it,really isnt that fair on ,who!?Ron Paul, thats who!?.Because of seeing him up close,with every public statement,and private actions unfolding.I would prefer a Democrat,but there is no disguising,the fact, that campaign fundings for Ron are larger for him than all the other candidates.So a further great divide is noticeable.But dont give up your cigarettes, because you will be smoking them with Obama,or seeking in Hilary s policy something direct about that, amongst a plethora of matters.And there are Republican who think smoking is a legitimate Freedom.Ron has to negotiate all that,just to sit in his present position.
Grrrr.Campaign funds by the fighting soldiers and other military that should read.
@Tigtog:
No offence intended, but I actually used to work with Larissa Dubecki at The Age, and can safely say that your comment is, well, bollocks. She has no interest in undertaking a “hatchet job on feminism as a whole”. Rather, she is genuinely a young feminist who happens, on this occasion, to disagree with much of the commentary being offered by some older feminists. Really, this should be no biggie, and certainly no reason for The-MSM-Is-Anti-Feminism conspiracy theories.