You know when I look at Obama's position on issues, I would call him a feminist. I would call Clinton a feminist.

I wish we would stop pitting feminists against each other based on if they're voting for the female presidential canidate.

I'd be happy to have Obama or Clinton as my president.

Stop this madness!

I don't get it? I rather liked her essay, in particular that part.

I think a lot of the distaste for Clinton comes from exactly what she was describing - young women who want to identify with men, show they aren't threatening, etc.

I don't know why feministing is always trying to pit old feminists against younger ones.

The above section of Morgan's essay is incredibly condescending. It completely fails to recognize that there are a variety of valid reasons younger women might decide to support Obama.

That's why she says, "some". She does not claim that this is the case for all or even most and so in no way "fails to recognize the variety of valid reasons".

MirandaJay, Robin Morgan is pitting older feminists against younger feminists throughout that entire essay (not just in that section). It is absolutely so offensive for her to assume that women who vote for Obama are buying into the sexist bullshit against Clinton, voting for their bfs, to gain post feminist points, or whatever the fuck else Robin Morgan seems to imagine young women are weak/dumb/misguided enough to do. This isn't feministing pitting young feminists against old. The above portion of the essay does just that. By Morgan's own ridiculous logic, voting for Clinton would be some post-civil-rights belief that "whooosh" racism is over. Doesn't she have a problem with that? Her argument is not only absurd, but offensive.

Thank You, Ann.

Isn't the whole point of this feminism deal that we reject the boxes that many wish to impose upon women? That we reject this very sort of determinism based on gender?

Leave it to elections to send us looking for boxes again.

Thank You, Ann.

Isn't the whole point of this feminism deal that we reject the boxes that many wish to impose upon women? That we reject this very sort of determinism based on gender?

"I think a lot of the distaste for Clinton comes from exactly what she was describing - young women who want to identify with men, show they aren't threatening, etc."

Leave it to elections to send us looking for boxes again, to use against ourselves as weapons.

I support Clinton, but I don't have any major problems with Obama. Whoever gets the nomination has my vote.

This morning in one of my classes someone said this election was basically a "race v gender" election. I really had to restrain myself not to leap across the room and strangle her.

I am not voting for Clinton BECAUSE she's a woman. It's a bonus, but not the reason I support her.

I'm sorry, but I think you've failed to support your argument about this passage, Ann. Morgan is giving very reasonable examples of situations that we all know have happened and will happen. I think it's clearly implied that these women would be Clinton supporters, if it weren't for the strong pressures against choosing her as their preferred candidate. Some women, believe it or not, do look at Hillary Clinton and think she'd be a better President. I'm one of them.

I feel badly that you're offended, but really - this is a bit of a stretch.

MirandaJay and K - In that same section, right after the words quoted by Ann in this post, Morgan writes, "I’d rather say a joyful Hello to all the glorious young women who do identify with Hillary, and all the brave, smart men—of all ethnicities and any age—who get that it’s in their self-interest, too. She’s better qualified. (D’uh.)"

I read those words in that context as saying that young women who identify with Obama are trying to be cool or are seeking male approval, while those that identify with Hilary are "glorious young women." Oh, and she didn't leave the menz out either. Only those that support Clinton are barve and smart and "get it." Because she's better qualified, "D'uh".

Yep, I'd say condescending is a fair reading of her words, not to mention arrogant and sanctimonious. Because it's off topic, I'm not going to comment on the part earlier in her asseverations where she says Obama is passing as white.

She doesn't seem to be picking on young feminists here, but "some young women." I can accept that. The Obama girl thing IS really annoying. And I think there are definitely young people who are streaking to Obama-mania based mostly on hype and "cool" factor. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of young, issue-voter Obama supporters as well. But there ARE people (of all ages) who pay little attention to the issues and still vote. And whatever, as long as they turnout & vote, I guess I don't really care why they're doing it. The first major feminist step for some young women is simply to use the vote they've been given.

The sad part about reading this is I know of a LOT more young women who fit her description than the type Ann is offended for. Feminists, even among women, are a minority in my large state university and for many of the reason described.

There's that, plus I have a friend who said she was voting for Obama. I asked her why and she said she saw a lot of posters up for him in the dorms, knew nothing else. I would be equally offended if she'd been backing Clinton for this reason.

It's these people, who are either controlled by anti-feminist men or distracted by shiny things, that scare the hell out of me.

All I have to say is,
THANK YOU, Robin!!! That was the most inspiring, feminist piece I've read in awhile. I'm a young woman, 27 to be exact (though I am starting to feel a little too old for this site) and frankly, I agree with all she said. Empowering. Feminist. Finally.

And Go Hillary. I, as a feminist, need you to win.

I don't think voting for Obama is anti-feminist. Nor do I think voting for Hillary just because she's a woman is in any way wrong.

After all, plenty of people supposedly voted for Bush because they thought he's the kind of man they'd like to have a beer with. Hillary is an accomplished woman, I can totally see why a woman would want to vote for her.

BTW, I voted for Obama, and my wife and mother voted for Clinton. Hillary's inability to clearly speak out against the Iraq debacle decided me; her detailed positions on various other topics decided my wife. My mother bluntly states that she's voting for Hillary because she's a woman, and I completely understand her view!

I am not going to apologize for liking this essay. WAY too often in this campaign is there a pressure and a need for women to APOLOGIZE or justify themselves for supporting Senator Clinton.

A simple blanket "I vote on issues" is all that is needed to vote for Obama, regardless of any backup and the fact that the candidates are VERY similar - so much that this blanket response is a poor summary of an actual decision.

I think it is foolish for this site to condemn the idea that some young women do feel influenced by these compelling factors. I've witnessed it first hand with friends and coworkers.

I don't think I have seen ANYWHERE the constant reiteration that anyone doesn't support Obama because of his "issues" without actually having to come up with examples as no Obama supporter is ever asked to do.

I think I agree with Morgan's essay in the sense that there probably ARE young women (and older women, and men) who won't vote for Hillary because she is a woman. But the face that there are people that will vote AGAINST Hillary just because she is female does not mean one SHOULD vote for her for the same reason. It is similarly true that there are people (the majority of which would never admit it in public) who would not vote for a Black man, but that does not mean people should cast their votes in favor of Obama as counterweight votes.
I think the hardest thing for me during this primary election is knowing that as a Democrat choosing between either Hillary or Obama, no matter who I voted for I was going to end up on the same side as people that I am usually diametrically opposed to. If I vote for Hillary- there are several hawkish, comparatively conservative people on that particular side of the fence. In voting for Obama, I will inevitably find myself on the same side of the fence as those who just don’t want a female president. I HATE being in the company of either of those groups but in the winner-take-all American political system, I have no choice but to hold my nose and vote.
I think Morgan is right in the sense that there ARE a lot of misguided people (see earlier feministing post regarding letter to the editor from Brittany, age 13 on women being unfit to be president) and yes, there are women young and old who run as far from the feminist label as possible- though I think for the most part they wouldn’t be voting for anyone on the Democratic ticket anyhow. I think the vast majority of women who are voting for either Obama or Clinton have put long and serious thought into their votes. Like Morgan I like Hillary’s health care plan, but I can’t get past her hawkishness. That, in the end, was the deciding factor for me.
I think that even older feminists can’t help but be effected by the media representation of young women as a bunch of girls gone wild. (Having an Obama girl didn’t help at all). I think Morgan, in reacting against that archetype may have cut too close to home by not being more specific and a little too over-eager in her support of Hillary. Even she says in her article that “97% of Hillary’s policies..are the same as Obama’s�.
To me, the article is doing two things 1) Celebrating the first REAL chance that a woman could win not only a major party nomination but the actual presidency and 2) Condemning the misogyny that female candidates must still face.

I think Morgan’s biggest mistake here was just being very excited about Clinton’s chances for success and not being more specific. Unfortunately I’d have to agree that there are self-hating women out there who don’t think women are fit to be president. I just don’t think that is why most women (dems anyway) who decide to not vote for Clinton made their decision. Not sure we should all be terribly insulted though… I think given what many 2nd wavers have seen, done & been through, I would be just a touch cynical at this point as well.

Yup. THANK YOU, Ann. Not every young woman who supports Obama is Obama Girl, and since when are women required to support female candidates just because they're female?!

I really appreciate you posting this, and especially your emphasis on the ISSUES -- I wish the mainstream media would take a closer look at THOSE.

Crshark: Where does Robin Morgan claim that Obama is passing as white?(honest question, not being snarky- I didn't see it). I am forced to ask though- since Obama is biracial, doesn't he have the right to claim white and black, or do you think he is just allowed either/or?

I'm a total n00b in the Movement, and consider both Obama and Clinton to be feminists by definition of how they vote. I am also aware, and thankful, that ObamaGirl certainly does not reflect the typical woman who supports Obama. But I do have a big problem with sexualizing the political process. I know that Morgan's article wasn't about that alone, but I think phenomena like ObamaGirl cripple our ability to take politics seriously as a whole, and set women back by encouraging men not to take them seriously. The whole ObamaGirl thing made me sick, to tell you the truth. It certainly didn't surprise me that men were behind it. In fact, that character was part of the reason I was tilted in Clinton's direction at caucus time. I think that as long as ObamaGirl type characters are created, every woman that votes for the Obamas of the future will be misjudged. Furthermore, I see a trend in democratic men I know - they are overwhelmingly supporting Obama. As a new feminist, I'm not sure what to make of this, but by first inclination is the "good ol' boys club" in action.

I therefore think I made a good decision in caucusing for Senator Clinton, but I'd be happy with either candidate for President. Either way, a mold will be broken once either one of them is even nominated.

I am a feminist and I am caucusing for Obama. My reasoning is because I am disgruntled with the Democratic Party and the insiders who are running it. I have found ample proof to convince me that Clinton is an insider who ultimately relies on top-down politics. Obama could be the same, but the movement and grassroots organizing I have seen from his campaign is encouraging. If he doesn't put people before corporations and help create a bottom-up democracy - well then the grassroots should be there with the netroots to hold him accountable and spread the word.

The article cited above offends me. Is it really that hard for some Clinton supporters to understand I am supporting Obama for valid reasons? And perhaps the majority of Obama supporters are also? Why the disconnect?

I think it's clearly implied that these women would be Clinton supporters, if it weren't for the strong pressures against choosing her as their preferred candidate.

How in the world do you know that? Even if it were true that many young women are supporting Obama for those reasons (*cringe*), neither you nor the writer quoted in the OP say a damn thing about these women's actual political inclinations -- you're both just unhappy that not all women are a gimme for Clinton just by virtue of being women.

I am a young woman (I'm 24) who is happily voting for Obama, and I don't feel I owe an apology for you or anyone else claiming to speak for capital-F Feminism (or "all women everywhere" for that matter, like NOW-NY). I am a feminist. I don't feel that I am compromising my feminism in any way by voting for Obama -- far from it. I am exercising the rights won for me by the hard work of the generations of feminists before me by voting for the candidate I feel is right, the candidate that frankly I think will actually be better for women in terms of policy. And I absolutely resent any implication that I am doing otherwise, ESPECIALLY that my considered, sincere vote is somehow pandering to the patriarchy.

Nazrafel -- There's a section of the essay that's entitled "Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white . . .", The first sentence of the third paragraph of that section reads, "Goodbye to a campaign where he [referring to Obama] has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable)."

In answer to your question, because there is such a complex mixture of attributes -- genetic, historical, cultural, economic -- that go into a person's racial identity, my approach is to honor and respect whatever racial identity a particular person chooses for him/herself or to honor and respect a person's decision to disclaim any racial identity. I think it is the height of arrogance for someone to question any other person's racial identity, even more so where the "race" of the person doing the questioning is different from the one over who s/he is passing judgment.

Sorry Ann, but I agree with many here that this argument seems to be a stretch. I think you're forgetting a lot of Middle America, where feminism isn't only a dirty word, it's simply 'not allowed.' I grew up there.

For Robin to point out that this problem remains wasn't an insult directed at feminists. There are indeed women afraid to vote for Clinton because of looking like they're voting with their vaginas.

I just wrote an article about the blind Hillary hate being a pretty obnoxious, and while I love feministing, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one. Feminists should be helping the women who don't realize they're oppressed. And it seems like that's what Robin was trying to do.

Not all women are Hillary supporters just like not all African Americans are Obama supporters. I like how she doesn't seem to take that into account, though. There are African American Hillary supporters like there are female Obama supporters. But oh wait, that doesn't matter, right? Of course not because it would screw up her argument, so she pretends that piece of data just doesn't exist.

I'm irritated by this essay. I am an Obama supporter. I've fought my way through the conservative midwest, dealt with several sexist people (including my family/parents) and guess what? I would be proud to have a female president. I want to see one very soon, including this next election. I simply agree with Obama on more issues (Kate21, I can explain which ones and why to you if you wish). While, yes, I'm sure some women were led to the decision to support Obama through social forces, I think she does a poor job of synthesizing that issue and addressing it. Let's try reaching out to them and helping to empower them instead of FURTHER TALKING DOWN TO THEM. This essay does nothing positive or productive except tear down other women. That's it. Tearing other women down does not further our cause, but hinders it. We need to build community, understanding and empowerment, not proclaim that women who obviously buckle under social pressure are weak, ignorant or traitors to other women.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I will support her for President, just like I will support Obama. I don't think she's a bad candidate (in fact, I think she's a fantastic candidate who is incredibly intelligent and savvy) and I appreciate what she's doing for women in politics. I appreciate the difficulty and what she's facing. I am, however, really tired of this turning into a battle of the traditionally oppressed. It accomplishes nothing. Let's leave the gender and race out of it. That means that people like Robin Morgan need to re-think their arguments. Women who vote for Obama are not mindless and are not traitors. We simply decided on a different candidate.

Hey feminists, here's a related question I've been mulling over:

Sure, there are plenty of feminists who support Obama over Clinton, usually because they're lefties and they think he's overall more progressive. Or for whatever reasons, I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth.

But I'm wondering, can you support Clinton and not be at least a bit of a feminist?

I'm suggesting that anyone who thinks an ambitious, aggressive woman is the best choice to be Commander in Chief of the Military, President of the U.S., leader of the largest economy in the world, and that she's going to do a better job than the male candidates, likely has some feminist inspiration behind that.

I put this question to a friend and he was pretty unconvinced. I think maybe it was his reaction to the idea that anyone who supports Clinton should get some kind of feminist credential for that. But that's what I'm wondering. Maybe they should.

To clarify, I'm not sure what I think is the answer to this question. It rather broadens the definition of feminism to suggest that the millions of Clinton supporters are all feminists. But hey, maybe that's a good thing and we should point it out. Or maybe it turns a movement into mouthwash, I don't know.

I'm with Ann, and I'm 48 years old. I voted for Obama today because I think he's a better candidate, and because I am not nearly as impressed by what Hillary Clinton said *in 1968* as I am by how cautious she's been on many issues since her election to the Senate. She's been a huge disappointment to me as a feminist of 35 years' standing, not to mention that a second Clinton presidency will bring back the Arkansas Project, Whitewater, and almost certainly at least one or two "bimbo eruptions" from the First Husband.

Most important: Hillary Clinton is heavily connected to a Religious Right Bible Study group in Washington, as detailed in this article from Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html. I don't care if she's a Democrat, a Republican, a Green, or a Libertarian: anyone who willingly studies the Bible as part of a group that intends to make this a "Christian nation" and believes that wives should be subordinate to their husbands is not a feminist. Period. She may be a competent Senator, and if she wins the nomination I'll vote for her, but right now I think we'd be better served by Obama.

And finally...isn't Robin Morgan the Second Wave feminist who was ashamed of being bisexual and lied about having a female lover? And who's basically dropped out of sight for the last dozen or so years? I remember being impressed by her anthologies back in college, but I can't recall her doing much since. Why has she suddenly surfaced, and why is she expecting to be taken seriously after keeping to such a low profile? I'm genuinely curious, since she's scarcely a household name these days.

Kate - I've noticed that, too. (in reference to Obama supporters not being scrutinized as much as Clinton supporters).

I agree that everyone should choose their candidate primarily on their position on important issues, and also on how well they would get these issues to the table. I, personally, am a Hillary supporter, though I love Obama also. What's really annoying me in the past few weeks is *some* of Obama's supporters - the ones who don't question anything he says, or that they love his smile, or that he's the best candidate just because he's "newer". Some of them are so fervent you'd think they were campaigning for Jesus! I even heard one person say that Obama could walk on water. I agree he's a great politician and incredibly inspirational and intelligent, it just bugs me how cult-like some of his supporters are getting here in Los Angeles. I think it blinds people to the facts that Obama IS a politician, and not some sort of infallible deity. Again, I'm only speaking of SOME of his supporters, certainly not the majority. I just had to vent :)

I'm sure there are a lot of antichoicers who would agree with Morgan and the commenters defending her article: that many young women don't know when they're being manipulated and oppressed, and are in need of saving from themselves. Good thing we have people on both sides of Feminism around to "enlighten" them.

...and so remarkable that these would-be saviors know SO many young women in need of enlightening. Says a lot about pervasive and entrenched opinions about the capacities of women in general. Oh wait, opinions of SOME women.

Somehow I missed the Obama video(s?!) last summer. Now that I've started to catch up by following the link back, I feel I seem to have missed something important in my femininity as well - am I abnormal for not hanging out with my female friends in bobettes and little camisoles?! It looks like so much fun... (DRIPPING with sarcasm and bewilderment)

Also, the video I saw looks to be by a company called "barely political" - I can't believe there are people who take this seriously. But I know there are. Yikes.

I don't know why feministing is always trying to pit old feminists against younger ones.

Yeah, no shit. Even though Ann says Morgan is talking about young feminists, I don't see that anywhere. She is referring to "some young women," which I think she made pretty goddamn clear. Or do you, Ann, honestly believe that no young women ever devote way too much time to impressing men, and never behave differently around them? What about all the women who go around saying "I'm not a feminist but..." Why, do you think, if a woman clearly has feminist ideas, would she not identify as such?

The fact is, a LOT of young women, myself included, care way too much about what men think of them, and there's no reason to take that as a slam against young women; it's a problem that needs to be dealt with, and slicing the head off of anyone who points it out isn't going to do a goddamn thing to advance our goals. I personally believe that if we could get all women, right now, to stop catering to men so damn much, things would be worlds different from what they are right now; in fact, I even believe it could send patriarchy crashing to its knees. I remember watching a video about transpeople once, and one man who had transitioned said he couldn't believe how much women catered to him once he was a man, and I believe there have been many studies about how differently women act around men and how they cater to them, act less intelligent, etc. I know I certainly did that at one time, and still do it all too often.

Furthermore, if memory serves me right, this site has often discussed how young women try to cater to men, but suddenly it's offensive when it comes from a woman who's no longer young and patriarchally approved? Seriously, just because Robin Morgan isn't hawt and "cool," we should take her apart for saying the same things we've said ourselves? Talk about internalizing misogyny.

And, if you'd look at the subheading, Morgan is saying that there's NOT a generational divide among women, that it's been misrepresented and that young women aren't actually all inanity like the Obama Girl -- and hell, even the Obama Girl isn't as inane as she seems, but is rather going along with some dumb dudes' ideas. But you know, way to help the media misrepresent and overblow the idea of some big generational gap/catfight between women.

Golly geez. What is all this about old feminists BS. Uh, maybe I am too old at 33, but my heroes are OLD FEMINISTS. I owe everything to them. Susan B Anthony would soooooooooo vote for Hillary if only she could have voted. And we need to look to our past like those crazy dinosaurs Alice Paul, Gloria Steinem et al so that we can build on that dream. We are only where we are today cause women have pioneered before us. We were not just given this opportunity. The women before us fought for the future.

It's so sad to see so many taking for granted their freedoms. You can disagree with Clinton's policies, and you don't have to vote for her. You have that choice cause women have suffered to get you that opportunity. But do not ask me to give up the fight. To not speak with fire when I see the young women going backward. Disagree with me, but damnit show some anger. Show some fight.

When Clinton/Core first ran in '92, I was the young voter feeling inspired. But I always remained spirited. My generation had riot grrls. We had huge feminist ideals and punk rock! This generation has Linsday and Brit Brit. I am sorry, but the article seems 100% relevant.

I will end with a line from the great Sleater-Kinney:

I can demure like girls who are soft for boys who are fearful of getting an earful... But I gotta rock!

I'm sure there are a lot of antichoicers who would agree with Morgan and the commenters defending her article: that many young women don't know when they're being manipulated and oppressed, and are in need of saving from themselves. Good thing we have people on both sides of Feminism around to "enlighten" them.

Oh for God's sakes. That's not what anybody is saying, and you know it damn well. In fact, if you really look at it, it's NOT really so dumb for women to cater to men -- men hold a hugely disproportionate amount of power in society, and often a woman's ability to get ahead or even her very SAFETY can depend upon how well she can conform to what the patriarchy expects of her. What women who try to please men are often doing is taking the best option they have out of a number of shitty options; we all have to cut our deals with the patriarchy, and it's not condescending to point that out; it's being realistic, and yes, it's uncomfortable to admit that we do this, but once again, IGNORING IT IS NOT GOING TO MAKE IT GO AWAY.

(Oh, and nice try on lumping us together with antichoicers -- or have you not heard that it's a common misogynist tactic to lump feminists in with right-wingers?)

Religiarchy, great article. The commenters illustrate the irrational, illogical hatred by certain Obama supporters.

I do wonder how Obama would have voted on the war initially, representing (against all odds, and having to do twice as well) both the conservative northern part of New York and the 5 boroughs surrounding the pit of Ground Zero only a year after 9'11. She has subsequently defended this by saying the objective was to allow the inspectors to finish the job. Who knows? But who also knows how Obama would have voted under such varied and explosive political and personal circumstances?

That's why I get really annoyed when someone says, "but she voted for the war!!" I mean, they both did continue to fund the war in 2006.

If people can offer electability and charisma as reasons to vote for a candidate, how about the amount of character-building one has to endure over the years?

Morgan trumps the same old BS that sexism is more damaging to women than racism has been to blacks.

Why cant feminists ever leave this alone? Both sexism and racism have been pervasive forces in american society, but every time you pit them against each other, racism is going to win every day of the week and twice on sundays. It makes feminists look weak and desperate for "victimhood" when they use this comparison. Frankly it hurts feminism because it takes off the focus of sexism as a stand-alone problem in american society.

Hi Ann,
Thanks for posting this. I thought it was interesting, and I enjoyed reading both Morgan's piece and your response to it. I'm not sure why you find it quite so offensive though. Is Morgan personally insulting you? Is it practical or even possible for her to insult an entire generation? I don't think so. I think it comes back to how we each see ourselves. When Morgan writes, "Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists..." she is addressing the women who fit that profile. Are you suggesting that there are no young women who embody the superficial characteristics she is addressing? I feel that I have met women who do, and I relate to her frustration with them. The way some people react to the word "femisism" you'd think that IT was a the real "f-bomb."

"Morgan trumps the same old BS that sexism is more damaging to women than racism has been to blacks."

I have to say this, but really this generalization works both ways. Every damn time someone says racism on this site they speak about color, more specifically black and white. Some of us other folks that are Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islanders, et all, are also feeling the effects of racism and sexism. It does not help me to see your side when you do the same generalization with race.

"Morgan trumps the same old BS that sexism is more damaging to women than racism has been to blacks."

I have to say this, but really this generalization works both ways. Every damn time someone says racism on this site they speak about color, more specifically black and white. Some of us other folks that are Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islanders, et all, are also feeling the effects of racism and sexism. It does not help me to see your side when you do the same generalization with race.

Hi Ann,
Thanks for posting this. I thought it was interesting, and I enjoyed reading both Morgan's piece and your response to it. I'm not sure why you find it quite so offensive though. Is Morgan personally insulting you? Is it practical or even possible for her to insult an entire generation? I don't think so. I think it comes back to how we each see ourselves. When Morgan writes, "Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists..." she is addressing the women who fit that profile. Are you suggesting that there are no young women who embody the superficial characteristics she is addressing? I feel that I have met women who do, and I relate to her frustration with them. The way some people react to the word "femisism" you'd think that IT was a the real "f-bomb."

Med Student, I don't see a point in pitting the two against each other. I do know I've seen men of ALL races in "Joe on the Street" interviews joking, or even earnestly pondering whether a woman can do the job. I guess it's still OK in this day and age, but that doesn't mean I can't find the phenomenon horribly disturbing.

Another commenter on some other board made an interesting point: a lot of racism was born from slavery. If there was a modern day slave trade of men and women, we probably wouldn't be crazy about the idea. However, men around the world are free to treat women as property, and we shrug and file this under "cultural or religious differences."

We're not aiming for victimhood, but just puzzled as to why sexism is still acceptable in the mainstream.

Hear, hear to Ponies and Rainbows and Jane Minty for those comments. I am a grown woman and I have been silent about supporting Hillary because people *actually would* look at me funny and I would endure comments and jokes steeped in sexism and misogyny, although that's certainly not a fate worse than death. I'm not proud of being silent, and under different circumstances I'm sure I'd have the strength to not care, or to use my time and energy to debate people, but I'm a human being and as others have already said much more articulately, sometimes I do what I have to do to get by. If this is going on for me, an otherwise self-identified feminist in a liberal, middle-class, professional enclave, then we DO need to care what the whole gamut of women, young and old, in every social strata, are experiencing as they ponder "what if", fucking finally, a woman could be elected president. And whether they see themselves in her, or not, and the complexity of what that means to them, and to the people in their lives who may be threatened by it, entertained by it, irritated by it, what have you. It's exhilirating and it's terrifying, because we know she *will* be held to different standards, and be made to represent *all women* (as she already is), but goddamn it, that is the price we will pay whenever the first time is. Thing is, there will always be some reason to put off the first time, to put it off for just the right candidate, for a "better" candidate, for "anyone but Hillary" (despite all the adulation that she is otherwise a "fantastic candidate" - boy I wish I had $5 for every one of those comments). Wonder if we will ever feel [insert woman candidate here] is "just the right" woman candidate? My guess is no. There will always be some choice she made, some board she sat on, that doesn't sit quite right, sit just perfectly...we DO compromise for men's choices, though...when the male candidates even bother to expose all 1300% of the minutiae of their choices over the past 30 years, that is...oh wait, that's right, we don't ask them to.

I am also tired of hearing the disagreement framed as "young versus old feminists." I think there is a clash of worldviews going on, to be sure, but I would more confidently characterize it as liberal vs. radical feminism. Some feminists do really believe most things are equal now, and that symbolic victories, size / force of numbers, and visibility are less important to minimizing power discrepancies and inequalities than straightforward legislation is. A gross oversimplification...it's late and I'm tired.

Medical Student, sexism isn't a stand-alone issue in our society. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you meant by that, but racism, sexism, classism, these things are not easily separated out, and in most cases absolutely can't be. I really don't know where you were going with that.

Thank you for bringing Morgan's essay to my attention. It is one of the most touching and sad things I've read during the campaign. I see history passing through my fingers to wait another century to have a woman representing the American people, who happen to be, in majority, women.

I feel exhausted by this long run of double standard and disappointed by the ignorance of history in some of these posts.

often a woman's ability to get ahead or even her very SAFETY can depend upon how well she can conform to what the patriarchy expects of her....What women who try to please men are often doing is taking the best option they have out of a number of shitty options; we all have to cut our deals with the patriarchy, and it's not condescending to point that out; it's being realistic

Of course the first thing a woman does when she is in danger, after all, is caucus. When she can't resist the overwhelming pressure to shake her booty like Obama girl, to escape her destiny as a hooters girl, to hate herself: she caucuses. Help them! Help the mind-controlled caucusers! Save them from the misogynists who would ignore their trauma! Imagine the pain they must be in to not vote for the candidate I want!

Help me, too, because by pointing out how second guessing the motives for my or other women's legal right to choose ANYthing, from who we marry, to where we work or go to school, to when we reproduce, to who we vote for, rings creepily similar in each case. In each case it feels exactly the same brand of insulting and condescending. Apparently that's only because the patriarchy has control of my brain, though, and I subsequently can't stop using this tired misogynist rhetoric. And here I thought it was just how I felt. Thanks, ponies and rainbows; maybe some day I'll see the light.

Maybe I'm a bad feminist, because this appeals to me. I have, in fact, been derided by men for identifying with and choosing to support Clinton (very openly; as though I'd really offended them by choosing her). I have, in fact, felt pressure from dudes to say something sexist to feel accepted. Still do. A lot. I may not cave (and I know I'm not alone), but that doesn't mean the pressure doesn't exist or that it doesn't effect the way that I experience life.

I think she makes an important point. Yes, she could have gone out of her way to mention that supporting Hillary has nothing to do with Feminism, and one can and often does, as a feminist, support Obama, but I just don't think that was the point. This sexist pressure still exists, and it's something women do live with, whether it effects their politics or not, and I think that was the point.

"Why has she suddenly surfaced, and why is she expecting to be taken seriously after keeping to such a low profile? "

Excellent reasons to dismiss her out of hand.

Also, the whole essay kicks ass and is really inspiring. So, thanks for linking to it, although I couldn't disagree more with the 'analysis'.

there will always be some reason to put off the first time, to put it off for just the right candidate, for a "better" candidate, for "anyone but Hillary"

Yeah, I'm kind of weary when it comes to responding to these arguments. Her behavior as a politician is pretty middle-of-the-road, and I can't imagine she's any more "evil" than many recent candidates, though if you speak to some they think she's the Antichrist.

I happen to think she's the best combination of experience and views, and the fact she's a woman is just a bonus. Even if I didn't support her, there's no doubt I'd be personally affected if she won the office. A Clinton and/or Obama presidency would be emotional for many.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't identify with her more personally, but that doesn't make Obama's heritage less significant to African Americans. Just because I experience sexism personally doesn't mean I place lesser value on other traditionally marginalized people. For instance, I think it's amazing when men fight actively for women's issues, but I don't expect it...female-friendly views and votes on the issues are fine with me.

That's why I get really annoyed when someone says, "but she voted for the war!!" I mean, they both did continue to fund the war in 2006.

If people can offer electability and charisma as reasons to vote for a candidate, how about the amount of character-building one has to endure over the years?

JaneMinty: Thanks and I couldn't agree with you more on all your points.

"And goodbye to ageism" my ass. Morgan doesn't give enough credit to young women or young feminist women, for that matter. Young feminist women can't vote for anyone else but Clinton? Young women who vote for Obama aren't feminist? Bullshit.

The only woman who Morgan didn't criticize who seems to be Obama's biggest fan is Hillary Clinton herself. She can't stop agreeing with him.

Also, Morgan is comparing oppressions here, like sexism is worse than racism, but everyone has been fooled into thinking it's the other way around. Not only should feminists not pit young against old, but we shouldn't pit women against racial and minorities either. Both Clinton and Obama are oppressed and privileged different ways -- Clinton benefits from White privilege, and Obama benefits from male privilege. They both benefit from privilege based on sexuality, religion, and ability. So making Clinton out to be more of a victim of oppression than women is unfair, offensive, and just plain stupid.

I think you're forgetting a lot of Middle America, where feminism isn't only a dirty word, it's simply 'not allowed.' I grew up there.

The many proud feminists of Middle America would be surprised to hear that, religiarchy. Just like young feminists, though, we're used to being ignored and dismissed.

I think that it is a worthwhile exercise to regender, reage, and switch candidates. Imagine if it read:
---
Goodbye to the so-called cautious “Clinton Woman� at the rallies, tastefully displaying her SUV and grey pinstriped pantsuit — then confessing Why Yes she did get it from Ann Taylor after seeing an ad for it while watching "Desperate Housewives" and paying full price because it “made me feel classier then buying something at Dress Barn.�

Goodbye to some older women eager to win male approval by showing they don't believe in change (at least not the kind who actually threaten the status quo), who think that women should hold supreme execute power because every house needs a woman - especially the White House, whose husbands sure prospered under the last Clinton years, and who fear their husbands might feel sexually inferior if they support the black man. Goodbye to voters of any age again feeling unsure, sulking “what if he’s not electable?� or “maybe it’s post-racism and people of color are already free.�
---
If it said that, it would be just as offensive as what Morgan said. Every candidate has a stock of stupid people that vote for him/her based on fuzzy logic tempered by the cultural stereotypes instead of learning the real facts. I know the "Obama Girl" and I know the "Clinton Woman" and neither are good indicators of how most women actually go about choosing a candidate.

To claim that a voter should support Candidate A because Candidate B has some truely stupid people behind him is a strawman. Both sides have their sheeple and to imply that a candidate is unworthy because his sheeple are young (while ignoring the old sheeple who follow your candidate) is insulting to all American voters.

"There are indeed women afraid to vote for Clinton because of looking like they're voting with their vaginas."

But up until now women were always accused of voting for candidate X because he was cute, or something. It's the same old thing... people saying that women don't vote for the issues, but for stupid crap that doesn't matter.

i'm 31, so i don't know if i'm old or young (i suspect old. . .) but really agree with RM. if there is a schism in feminism, i can't fathom being on the other side of her, she has done so much. . .

now, i live in NYC, and myself and my few hardcore feminist friends (by hardcore, i mean, have read feminist literature) have been whispering to each other that we are voting for Clinton, as it is super-uncool. every woman i know who is single is backing Obama or not voting at all. all my hipster-type girlfriends are either voting Obama or not voting at all. every man i know that is not gay is backing Obama. i think we know what this is, how can we deny, women going along with men instead of standing up for a powerful woman who has been smeared as a bitch and a "dyke". i can't say this is why allll 20something women are voting Obama, but i'd say it's a big factor.

and why do the blogs spit on the "old" feminists so often, if not for them, where would we be?

and why do the blogs spit on the "old" feminists so often, if not for them, where would we be?

Sometimes I wonder why older feminists don't listen to young feminists more. Jessica recently posted the story about how Feministing came to be, and what seemed to be the real inspiration behind the start of this blog is the fact that so many older feminists weren't really listening to us. I think there might be too much of this "I've been a feminist longer than you have, and you would be nothing if it weren't for my efforts, so listen to me" among older feminists. If everyone simply mimicked what the older feminists did before them, the movement would be just as racist as it was then (it still is with some people). Some of that racism that was more obvious in past movements is throughout Morgan's article. She hasn't changed with the times, so maybe we shouldn't learn from her.

The major thing that feminism has taught me is to think for myself and not apologize for it. You say that your feminist friends whisper that they voted for Hillary Clinton. Instead of wondering about the feminist status of Obama supporters, I wonder about the feminist status of people who call themselves feminists but are afraid to admit that they're voting of Clinton. Maybe they're more unsure about how dedicated they are to the movement than they are about what their boyfriends are going to think of them.

Very well said, SarahS. I think the sheeple idea is exactly what was missing from this conversation. Just because you know one, just because you felt pressure to be one*, doesn't mean it's okay to start throwing that notion around as normative.

* Pressure to be, maybe not even a sheeple, but quiet about your rights and opinions, like this:

The major thing that feminism has taught me is to think for myself and not apologize for it. You say that your feminist friends whisper that they voted for Hillary Clinton. Instead of wondering about the feminist status of Obama supporters, I wonder about the feminist status of people who call themselves feminists but are afraid to admit that they're voting of Clinton.

Gotta say, I was wondering this, too. Does this mean you're not out there being very vocal about how heinously Hillary is being/has been treated in the media and public discourse, either? Is the position that young women voters silently advocate the treatment she's been getting?

I am so sick of the "feminists/women should vote for Hillary because..." statements.

The truth is that I don't care what gender a candidate is. I care about where they stand on the issues that affect me most, and the issues that I feel strongly about.

I'm not thrilled that Clinton signed the In Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman (RH Reality Check is a good source of unbaised info).

Yes, she's had a lot of crap and misogyny thrown at her, but that's not going to make me vote for her out of sympathy. That would be no better than voting for Bush because I'd like to have a beer with him, or voting for Huckabee because Chuck Norris made funny commercials for him.

I wasn't thrilled with either Clinton with Bill was in the White House. Hillary's campaign tactics have been nasty and dirty. Of course she can claim she didn't know her campaign people were trashing Obama, or trying to keep his supporters from handing out info at polling places, or trying to keep his supporters in Nevada from voting. But I don't really believe that.

I'm not saying Obama's a saint, I take any politician with a large grain of salt. Alternet is a great source of unbiased information on all candidates.

And when Hillary cried a second time, I just got annoyed. Tearing up once, ok. But why did she have to tear up after someone asked how she did her hair every morning? If she was tearing up over violence, war victims, hurricane victims, something tragic, fine. But a question about her HAIR???

Yes, I agree that the essay did have the tone that there was no valid reason why a young woman (feminist or not) would vote for someone other than Clinton. I would imaging that anyone who is homosexual would have an issue voting for a candidate that signed the In Defense of Marriage Act. Obama isn't championing gay marriage, but he did say he supports homosexual couples' having the same rights as married couples, and that's the best I've heard from any candidate on the topic.

And I have always, always believed that if Hillary had not married Bill, or left him early on before he became President, she would not be anywhere near where she is now. I'm sorry, but really. She's put up with a lot of humiliation due to his ridiculous behavior, for what? Her political career? I just can't get past the idea that she played the role of a good political wife to get to where she is today, and that doesn't sit right with me.

So that's why I'm voting for Obama, and yes, PLENTY of women of all ages have spent time defending their decision to vote for Obama. Isn't that what I've just done here?

morgan...
I'm a 31-year-old, straight, married man who backed Clinton in the NV caucus and helped her WIN!! Every voter in our house (extended family setup) caucused for Senator Clinton and is still cheering her on. None of us would mind seeing Obama get the nomination, though.

You're right though. It does seem like most single women and all the hetero men (save my radical feminist buddy Greg) I know are pulling for Obama, too. Maybe we're too old, but it almost seems like a fashion statement. Then again, folks in these comments are giving compelling reasons for voting Obama. Not compelling enough to make me jump ship, although I've already caucused, but compelling all the same.

I'm disappointed. Robin Morgan's brilliant essay did not read as condescending towards younger feminists to me. But the blog post and some of the comments (particularly asking where has she been and why listen to her) read as creating divisions based on age.

I've held the banner of younger feminist, in my twenties. I've passed it on, as you will. I'm 44, I've been reading feministing for awhile (this is the first time I've been moved to comment) and I've enjoyed it thus far. Occasionally I don't agree, but that's been wonderful and interesting to me until now.

Sorry, but I think you found the offense you were looking for.

Laurel, I would venture a bet that the division amongst us is precisely what the enemy wants.

Imagine that. I think we all - whether we're pro-Clinton feminists or pro-Obama feminists, seasoned feminists, or (like me) new feminists - have a lot more in common than we have setting us apart. Since the candidates are very similar on many levels, I think that most of this infighting is nonsense.

I will make the assertion that Clinton, should she make it to the Oval Office, will have a lot more clout in DC than Obama will. Charisma and oratorical skills can only get you so far.

So that's why I'm voting for Obama, and yes, PLENTY of women of all ages have spent time defending their decision to vote for Obama. Isn't that what I've just done here?

Indeed. Obama's critics talk a lot about 'charisma and oratorical skills' and ignore the fact that he did criticize the Iraq war when it was not a popular choice, that he worked with Planned Parenthood of Indiana to protect the women's right to choose (something the Clinton campaign had the gall to use in mailings against him, and that he has a website packed with-- you guessed it-- actual positions.

Since the candidates are very similar on many levels, I think that most of this infighting is nonsense.

Agreed, and the stereotyping of "Hillary supporters" as Old School Feminists in pantsuits and "Obama supporters" as Hot Young Things is doubly annoying when it comes from feminists and progressives.

And yes, women may feel pressured to vote one way or another, but the last time I looked the voting booth was still private.

"something the Clinton campaign had the gall to use in mailings against him"

I don't care for some of the dirty tricks the Clinton campaign has pulled. It's exactly that kind of stuff that divides people. You'd think she'd know that by now. I admire Obama for not taking the same approach.

Also, she should keep ol' Bill on a shorter leash because he runs his mouth too much. Some of the things he's said about Obama have been waaaaay out of line.

Did anyone happen to see Ari Fleischer on CNN last night? His commentary, to me, proves the republicans see us clawing at each other over these often petty differences, and are blowing it completely out of proportion.

If either candidate rolls their sleeves up and fights dirty, it should be after the national convention, and against a republican. But that candidate should be damn careful not to resort to lies.

All this friendly fire is making me dizzy.

I'm an older feminist who voted for Obama. I do listen to what you younger feminists have to say, and sometimes find the older rhetoric too dogmatic. But the article did not appear to me to be picking so much on younger feminists as picking on anyone who didn't vote for Hillary. Just the same I was not offended by it, and thought that she made a few good points.

Among many other reasons, I voted for Obama because sadly, I actually don't think this country is "ready for a woman president". I don't think there's a chance in hell that she can beat a republican after seeing the way a woman can be absurdly trashed in the media and it is mostly just viewed as normal commentary. To view blacks and women as competing oppressed groups is non-productive, comparing apples and oranges, but maybe since overt racism in the media is not as acceptable, Obama has a chance to escape some of the force of attacks that will come during the election. And then we can finally have a more progressive president which would be good for women's issues as well as minority issues.

It has been especially dismaying to me to see how many so called liberal men absolutely hate Hillary, they say not because she is a woman, but can't manage to hide their misogyny when they try to explain their dislike for her. I know men who are lifelong democrats who will not vote for a democrat for the first time in their lives if she is the candidate. Though I long to see a woman president in my lifetime, I feel that this is too dangerous a point in our history to have one more republican president who can alter the make up of the Supreme Court toward the right.

I don't care for some of the dirty tricks the Clinton campaign has pulled. It's exactly that kind of stuff that divides people. You'd think she'd know that by now. I admire Obama for not taking the same approach.

This is some of the missinformation by Obama supporters. His campaign has indeed done below board tactics as well. Like the mailer that went out against Hillary's healthcare plan was right out of the Carl Rove handbook.

I find it funny that people are voting based on rhetoric and not on track record. Hillary supported the use the resolution to use force, she did not support the presidents failure in Iraq. But the failures of the Bush Admin are the failures of the Bush admin.

And about the gay thing, why is it that Logo mentioned right before the CA vote that Clinton was the only candidtate so far to meet with them? She did overwhelming well with that group on Super Tuesday. She has reached out to that group and to the forgotten Latinos and Asians. Obama can't just show up 2 days before the vote and rollout all his cheerleaders and expect that to equal the substance of real change she has aleady shown.

Again I agree witht he article. So many young women are voting for Obama based on the lies and talking points of the white male media.

I do believe that every woman has the right to vote for the best candidate. But it isn't suprising that pragmatic voters maintained their stance regardless of the media onlsaught of Obama fever. Riding a wave or cathing the fever is no reason to dismiss record and experience.

Food for thought:

On this thread, which candidate is getting ripped to shreds on this forum re: spouse, apparel, emotional displays, and career.

Which one isn't.

Isn't it possible that even feminists sometimes don't give other women the credit they deserve? For sexist reasons?

Sometimes, it is easier to be "self" loathing (and by that, I mean loathing those like us, I know Hillary is not "Every Woman"--that's Whitney Houston, for one) than other loathing (using "other" in the Simone de Beauvoir tradition).

I'm glad I'm not the only one with whom this essay resonated despite its flaws (if only titles could be copyrighted -- "Goodbye to All That" has to be one of the most overused essay titles of all time. Someone needs to write "Goodbye to Goodbye to All That.")

Could someone please point out these gigantic differences in THE ISSUES that Clinton and Obama have?

I keep reading and re-reading their issue pages and it all seems pretty much the same to me. Any of you Obama girls (haha) care to tell me which ISSUES they differ on so greatly?

I don't need to hear about the corporate thing or how she stayed with her husband or her pant suits or what her campaign staff did to Obama or how she voted previously, I'm talking about THE ISSUES people are supposedly voting based on.

The other thing I have to say is that I last night I said to myself "fuck it, I'm voting based on who has the coolest t shirts" and started looking at all the candidates merch.

I was kind of creeped out by one of Obamas signs that clearly was referencing a photo of MLK. I thought that was manipulative and not right. He seems like a nice guy and all, but he's not MLK. Is it just me or does he not even TALK about race?

Jennifer - You have expressed my sentiment better then I could. I caucused for Clinton for many of the reasons you specify. I don't trust the white male media, either (and I'm a white male, imagine that). In fact, I get most of my information from feminist blogs and websites. In a way, I don't blame Clinton for duking it out like she does, because the male-dominated media puts her at a disadvantage, to an extent. I don't hear about any of the other candidates fashion sense or level of sensitivity. The pundits who talk these points to death about Clinton are only playing the same old misogynist, superficial card that folks have been playing against women for years. Ya'll would know that better than me.

IMHO, Clinton is the right candidate for the job. Period. She's got the experience, the clout, and the guts to make some shit happen.

the_becca: This section of the essay is clearly, clearly about some women's reactions to Hillary Clinton as a candidate for President, and how social (patriarchal) pressures are keeping them from expressing, either verbally or through the ballot, their support for her candidacy. That's why I questioned Ann's argument, and why so many others are crying foul as well.

I am not upset that more women aren't voting with Obama, nor am I questioning your feminism, or anyone else's.

People are treating Obama like he's the messiah. He's a politician, imperfect as the rest of them. I think it would behoove us all not to forget that.

Using gender as a basis for choosing is bigoted and irrational, right? I mean if you had breast cancer you wouldn't automatically choose a female surgeon. Or maybe you would. I am voting for Hillary because she's a woman and I get tired of being told that the fact that she's a woman should not be a consideration....my deceased mother was told the same thing when she tried to request a female doctor in the practice. She should have insisted, unapologetically, and so should I.

I can tell you the issues that drove me to choose Clinton over Obama: they were women's issues. For instance, her website has a section devoted to women's rights, abortion, etc. She talks about the need to get government out of women's bodies. Obama's section on "women's issues" says...
Oh wait. That's right. He doesn't HAVE one.

Seriously, I could be happy with either candidate, but with the way the world is going, I'm concerned that an Obama presidency would let a lot of things slide (international women's rights, domestic violence, abortion rights, etc.) that a Clinton presidency would not. I am really curious about what Obama has done/would do for women, and if any Obama supporters on this site have information about his record and his campaign promises on this front, I welcome it, because I can't tell myself from his speeches and promotional materials. I'm afraid that women get sublimated with his campaign, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Sigh. Maybe it's because I'm one of those *old* feminists, over 30 and all ;) LOL. Let's not forget that we have more in common than we have differences.

I can tell you the issues that drove me to choose Clinton over Obama: they were women's issues. For instance, her website has a section devoted to women's rights, abortion, etc. She talks about the need to get government out of women's bodies. Obama's section on "women's issues" says...
Oh wait. That's right. He doesn't HAVE one.

Seriously, I could be happy with either candidate, but with the way the world is going, I'm concerned that an Obama presidency would let a lot of things slide (international women's rights, domestic violence, abortion rights, etc.) that a Clinton presidency would not. I am really curious about what Obama has done/would do for women, and if any Obama supporters on this site have information about his record and his campaign promises on this front, I welcome it, because I can't tell myself from his speeches and promotional materials. I'm afraid that women get sublimated with his campaign, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Sigh. Maybe it's because I'm one of those *old* feminists, over 30 and all ;) LOL. Let's not forget that we have more in common than we have differences.

I can tell you the issues that drove me to choose Clinton over Obama: they were women's issues. For instance, her website has a section devoted to women's rights, abortion, etc. She talks about the need to get government out of women's bodies. Obama's section on "women's issues" says...
Oh wait. That's right. He doesn't HAVE one.

Seriously, I could be happy with either candidate, but with the way the world is going, I'm concerned that an Obama presidency would let a lot of things slide (international women's rights, domestic violence, abortion rights, etc.) that a Clinton presidency would not. I am really curious about what Obama has done/would do for women, and if any Obama supporters on this site have information about his record and his campaign promises on this front, I welcome it, because I can't tell myself from his speeches and promotional materials. I'm afraid that women get sublimated with his campaign, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Sigh. Maybe it's because I'm one of those *old* feminists, over 30 and all ;) LOL. Let's not forget that we have more in common than we have differences.

Ann (and others on this thread), do not conflate "some young women" with "young feminists." Morgan is not dissing ANY feminists in this piece. I completely agree with her.

Many, many people associating voting for Hillary Clinton with being a feminist. They think feminism is wrong, so they bad-mouth Clinton and her supporters.
Many young women are die-hard Obama supporters because they don't want to be shunned as dirty feminists for supporting Clinton.
Their whole argument in favor of Obama is that "Hillary's a bitch." Seriously. That viewpoint is incredibly widespread, and I see nothing wrong with calling people out for having it.

Too many young women feel compelled to loudly reject Clinton in order to gain approval from men.

K, Sunspots, and SarahMC. I agree with all three of you, totally. Thanks for helping the new guy out.

I reckon I'm an "old" feminist, too, although I'm very NEW to the movement. After all, I am over 30, but it seems like we're talking less about age and more about ideology. A bit off the subject, but I'm curious - what's your feeling about men identifying as feminists? I proudly do so, but some feminists, I understand, aren't comfortable with that.

Burntsienna, I just don't buy that argument. Just because overt sexism is more "acceptable" we shouldn't nominate a female candidate? Screw that. I've said before that a great way to promote change is to find one of these irrational Clinton haters (as opposed to Obama supporters - there's a big difference) and at least get him (or her) to actually examine the source of that person's bile.

I know men who are lifelong democrats who will not vote for a democrat for the first time in their lives if she is the candidate.

Well, too bad. If she is the nominee and they want to act like children, they deserve every minute of the next Republican administration. There's only so much pandering you can do to idiots, and when it comes to our own party (or at least those not in the Repub party), you shouldn't have to babysit. If her otherwise moderate take on most issues isn't good enough for those "not ready" for a female president, I'm not pandering to them. They need to do their own soul-searching whilst stewing in the juices of McCain for the next 4 years.

It's a shame that those who are genuinely supporting Obama have to deal with the few nutcases who are just looking for another way to express their hatred for the female candidate.

I've seen Clinton accomplish so much under a ridiculous amount of scrutiny and abuse. If anything, her resilience might (again) surprise you. She's a tough nut to crack.

I just want to digress for a moment to address what BurntSienna brought up- "I know men who are lifelong democrats who will not vote for a democrat for the first time in their lives if she is the candidate." To my shock and dismay, when talking with some male dem friends, they expressed similar options- going so far as to say they would vote for McCain. Has anyone else had that experience? I think this primary election has become (for democrats) a giant Rorschach test. We are all projecting our own feelings, prejudices and fears onto the candidates and it is playing out in dialogue in the MSM and in blogs. I would be interested to hear from other women with male friends who self-id as "liberal" or "progressive" & have expressed strongly held opinions on Clinton- positive or negative.

Yikes! Sorry for the freakish triple post.

I think ideology and age are combining here. When I was fiery and fresh out of college, I would not have taken well to someone attacking my feminist cred while I was out there fighting the good fight. I totally get that. Now, after ten years and umpteen mistakes later, along with a lot of collaboration with feminists from radically different backgrounds, I realize that I fuck up all the time, and it doesn’t make me any less feminist. It’s just not always easy to see how we’re affected by the sexism that permeates our culture. Feminists need a way to debate and help each other grow that doesn’t turn into an attack, and hopefully this can be one of those forums.
So: while respecting a feminist’s right to choose Obama (I’m certainly not calling that a mistake!), we can’t ignore the sexism that has been a part of either official or unofficial campaigns against Clinton and think about the implications, weigh the choices, considering everything. Race, gender, the accompanying rhetoric--none of these can be made invisible, no matter how uncomfortable we get. This Clinton/Obama race has made me awfully tired of invisible, or barely visible, issues.

Frankly, I think it’s fascinating that Clinton won among poorer voters and women, and wealthier voters and men chose Obama. Maybe I’m not the only one who is questioning his commitment to or plans for health care, education, and human rights. Lastly, like Jane and Nazrafel, in my daily conversations I meet more men AND women who support Obama because they “just don’t like� Clinton or don’t think she can win. Not all of them, but too many to ignore.

syndicalist: As for male feminists, I’m engaged to one. The more the better!

I really hope that this only posts once.

Just a general comment here--- to be totally honest, I have to wonder if the prevailing focus on the whole 'young versus older' feminists divide is kind of a missed opportunity for feminists in general. Personally, as a feminist that supports Obama, sure, I'm ANNOYED by accusations that I can't be a feminist and support a man, but what really OFFENDS me is the thinly veiled racism that permeates statements like Morgan's and Steinem's-- and it's that racism that makes me most concerned about the state of feminism, not the possibility of a generational gap. I mean (older, white) feminists have had much outcry of late about how it's 'ok' to be sexist in our society, but to suggest that racism has been comparatively absent from the arena is simply untrue. (There are PLENTY of blogs and progressive media sources that have done an excellent job covering some of the truly appalling racism that has surrounded Obama's political ascension, I just suspect that Ms. Morgan and I are reading different blogs, heh.)

What really worries me is that we exist in a feminist movement where it is "OK" to make statements as ignorant as: "A few non-racist countries may exist—but sexism is everywhere." Personally, I'd like to say "goodbye" to a feminism lead by women who are privileged enough to believe that racism is no longer considered socially acceptable. I'm tired of feminism being the property of women who dismiss racism when they want to ("goodbye to conversations about... slavery") and then claim the oppressions of women of color as their own: "we have survived polygamy... jails, asylums, sati, perdah, fgm". I think it's TOTALLY worthwhile to point out that there's no vagina litmus test (as has been discussed on more than one occasion here), but I don't want that conversation to come a the expense of examining the some of the other deeply problematic aspects of pieces like Morgan's... I feel like we've been inclined to keep revisiting the vagina litmus test issue while saying "we've actually [read:sufficiently] addressed" the other issues.

Ismone, Chaka Khan is actually Every Woman. ;-)

MirandaJay, I like Obama's energy policy better, I think his health plan has a better chance of actually getting passed, and his positions on transparency in government are more to my tastes. And getting out of Iraq is for me one of the biggest issues-- for global stability and our own economic stability. The fact that Hillary has never disowned her support for the was bothers me deeply.

Nazrafel, it's a weird election year. I haven't seen any people willing to vote McCain over Hillary, but Ann Crazyass Coulter says she'd vote for Hillary over McCain you know personalities are becoming a big part of this election.

I mean (older, white) feminists have had much outcry of late about how it's 'ok' to be sexist in our society, but to suggest that racism has been comparatively absent from the arena is simply untrue.

WORD, talknormal. I'm very tired of learning that women are the real 'winners' of the Oppression Olympics.

JaneMinty you may be right, and if Clinton's resilience surprised me and she won the nomimation and the election I would be very happy, as I would also if Obama won. I actually like both of them. But my personal theories about electability were only part of how I came to decide to support Obama.

Regarding the "liberal" Clinton bashing men, it is interesting though how being finally presented with the reality of a female president has flushed out their true feelings about gender equality for all to see. And yes they certainly should be called on it. Unfortunately the ones I know don't seem to be self reflecting enough to get what they're doing when its pointed out to them.

For myself, it took alot of soul searching and a long time for me to decide between Clinton and Obama (and Edwards). I think they each have good and bad qualities. I had to get through some ridiculous arguments with myself. If I choose Obama am I unconsciously doing so to avoid confrontation with men? If I'm not doing that will people think I am, and then does that send a message out that I don't like? If I choose Clinton is it just because I believe that a woman could be a good president, and not because I think she's the best candidate? And etc.

I did decide that I would consider electability to make my decision. Though a black man may very well not end up being electable either, I have been thinking about the possibility of Hillary Clinton running for president for a long time now, and its always been my gut feeling that she wouldn't make it. My gay son is an avid Hillary supporter and we've talked about this for years now (we're from New York so Hillary is always very visible for us). So at least there's one guy I know who strongly favors a Hillary Clinton presidency.

I believe Robin Morgan is Jewish (as am I...well, my father, which technically doesn't count.) I kind of wish she'd made anti-Semitism comparisons to the kind of sexism Hillary is experiencing -- we all know that no one would respond to the anti-Semitic equivalent of "how do we beat the bitch?" if Lieberman were running, and I don't think she'd be attacked as "ignorant" or "privileged" or engaging in the "oppression olympics" for pointing that out.

Every damn time someone says racism on this site they speak about color, more specifically black and white. Some of us other folks that are Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islanders, et all, are also feeling the effects of racism and sexism. It does not help me to see your side when you do the same generalization with race.

So it's the fault of those being oppressed that others who are being oppressed are not having their voices heard?

The thing that has pissed me off so much about how the media is looking at the campaigns is in terms of race v. gender issues, once again ignoring those of us that have to deal with both. Morgan's article is a perfect example of that.

The 15th, anti-Semitism takes different forms than sexism. But I certainly wouldn't say it doesn't exist. This 'this would NEVER be said about [insert other repressed group here]' conversation strikes me as uneccessarily reductive and devisive. Or am I mis-reading your point?

I think these comparisons can sometimes be useful because they either make people realize how poisonous sexism is or force them to admit that they do not take sexism very seriously. Anti-Semitism definitely exists, but it is not generally publicly acceptable. So Lieberman might be slimed with anonymous e-mails or push polls suggesting that he conforms to some Jewish stereotype, but I can't imagine anyone saying it in public. Or maybe I'm giving people too much credit?

the15th - Your point has some merit. Sexism tends to be overlooked a lot more than racism/anti-semitism. I don't think anyone can deny that.

I think you might be! The thing for me is that just because something isn't overt, like a lot of sexism, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't powerful. There've been a lot of pieces in the blogosphere about how "canadian" is turning into code for "black person" in some areas-- boingboing link. My fear is that we spend too much time arguing over who has it worse when we should be focusing on what sucks, why it sucks, and how to fix it.

Gotta say, I was wondering this, too. Does this mean you're not out there being very vocal about how heinously Hillary is being/has been treated in the media and public discourse, either? Is the position that young women voters silently advocate the treatment she's been getting?

I have to admit, I used to be more active on message boards and other forums talking about sexism and the sexist coverage Hillary Clinton gets. At the same time, I don't think I have to prove to anyone how much I care about women's issues just because I didn't vote for Clinton in the primary. Voting for Clinton doesn't make one a feminist. And since most people don't consider themselves feminists, out of the millions of Hillary Clinton supporters, I'd say only a handful of them are as dedicated to feminism as the people who leave comments on Feministing in support of Obama. I think everyone here who voted so far voted with their feminist values, so nobody should have to apologize for their vote.

Ann,
I AM A YOUNG FEMINIST. I identified with Robin Morgan's article completely. So did many of my YOUNG FEMINIST peers who sent it around like wild-fire.
You say it's 'older feminists' pitting themselves against 'younger feminists' - but it takes two to tango, and I've had enough of it on this website, which I read probably 8 times a day.
Just as not all young feminists are your interpretation of what Morgan says, not all young feminists agree with your interpretation of Morgan!

"The major thing that feminism has taught me is to think for myself and not apologize for it. You say that your feminist friends whisper that they voted for Hillary Clinton. Instead of wondering about the feminist status of Obama supporters, I wonder about the feminist status of people who call themselves feminists but are afraid to admit that they're voting of Clinton. Maybe they're more unsure about how dedicated they are to the movement than they are about what their boyfriends are going to think of them."

wow. first of all, i don't think anyone who talks to me for 5 seconds can't tell i'm a radical feminist, and secondly, and more to the point, i don't think i ever said ashamed to admit, as i don't feel any shame about my position (hence my post). i think i am pointing out a social phenom instead of lack of commitment on my own part. and lastly, i don't think you can correlate speaking more loudly (or in a bikini) with more consciousness---but then, i learned that with age (sorry, couldn't resist). god, i am old.

"My fear is that we spend too much time arguing over who has it worse when we should be focusing on what sucks, why it sucks, and how to fix it."

Amen.

I feel compelled to note what Robin wrote back in 1970 (a seven years before the year I was born) and its relevance today, lest I lose sight of what I've felt the aim of feminism is since I joined the movement at the ripe old age of 30 (that's last year for you math buffs).

"Let's run it down. White males are most responsible for the destruction of human life and environment on the planet today. Yet who is controlling the supposed revolution to change all that? White males (yes, yes, even with their pasty fingers back in black and brown pies again). It just could make one a bit uneasy. It seems obvious that a legitimate revolution must be led by, made by those who have been most oppressed: black, brown, and white women — with men relating to that as best they can. A genuine Left doesn't consider anyone's suffering irrelevant, or titillating; nor does it function as a microcosm of capitalist economy, with men competing for power and status at the top, and women doing all the work at the bottom (and functioning as objectified prizes or "coin" as well). Goodbye to all that."
—Robin Morgan, Goodbye to All That, 1970.

We could get into what a man's function in the movement ought to be, but that's a whole other subject.

But I'm wondering, can you support Clinton and not be at least a bit of a feminist?

I think it's possible.

Jack Nicholson supports her and he definitely hates women: When he finally managed to impregnate a woman with a boy-child, he said, "I finally got something right." His daughters from other relationships apparently don't mean shit. Men who don't hate women don't say things like that.

And to address part of Robin Morgan's essay: I don't believe that Obama Girl saying she felt like a dork proves much of anything. I've been encouraged to do things by my friends that made me feel uncomfortable: skiing, karaoke, Dance Dance Revolution, whatever. Those activities made me feel like a dork. It doesn't mean that I was oppressed by my friends or that I was too weak to say no.

And, as far as young women go, young voter participation in the caucuses and primaries has not been strong; it's something like 10 percent. Therefore, Obama's official support must be coming from older people, and older women.

While I'm here, I think I'll throw in my two cents for why I'm supporting Obama.

It's not because he's more liberal; his record and official positions show that he's not.

It's not because I'm absolutely convinced he has a better chance of winning; once the Republican smear machine gets to work, who knows what could happen.

It is because I think he can transform the Democratic Party. I believe that he can convince culture warriors to vote their own interests or to vote on issues like war and poverty rather than abortion and gays. I believe that he can convince gun-toting ranchers in Montana to vote for him, even to vote for Democrats in general.

I know many progressives may not see these things as positives. Why should we allow homophobes into out party or NRA types? To a certain extent I agree. I want to see the culture warriors crying into their nonalcoholic communion wine, but the reality is that we need these people. They make up too large a swath of the country at large and important electoral states in particular.

I mostly believe that Obama can win and, assuming he can, his coattails will carry large numbers of Democratic candidates into the House and Senate in 2008.

wow. first of all, i don't think anyone who talks to me for 5 seconds can't tell i'm a radical feminist, and secondly, and more to the point, i don't think i ever said ashamed to admit, as i don't feel any shame about my position (hence my post). i think i am pointing out a social phenom instead of lack of commitment on my own part. and lastly, i don't think you can correlate speaking more loudly (or in a bikini) with more consciousness---but then, i learned that with age (sorry, couldn't resist). god, i am old.

I wasn't talking about you. You said that your friends feel like they have to whisper about their support of Clinton, right? Feminists can't just talk to themselves or their like-minded buddies about how feminist they are, and then do nothing when challenged with sexist views. Feminists should be more vocal about who they're voting for and, more importantly, tell people about their candidate's feminist values. I don't know if that's a fundamentally feminist value, but it certainly doesn't hurt us.

The weirdest thing about all of this is that I feel like I should be ashamed for my vote based on some of the things that Clinton supporters have said here. I mean, did I vote for Obama or Huckabee?

I found a good op-ed:

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=50509

Got it from my radical feminist friend Greg. I like the use of this Malcolm X quote by the author, concerning Obama's hyped campaign:

“A man who tosses worms in the river isn’t necessarily a friend of the fish. All the fish who take him for a friend, who think the worm’s got no hook in it, usually end up in the frying pan.�

I encourage those open to do so to peruse the article when you get a chance. I think the guy makes some solid points. Apparently Obama has done some pandering and back scratching of his own.

Not to cause strife or whatever, but Obama ain't the saint the media claims he is.

Come off it Femily. Ashamed? Could you please point to "some of the things that Clinton supporters here have said" that make you feel ashamed for voting for Obama?

Because I keep reading here who support her say "If you support Obama that's fine, but I feel like non feminist people might not support Clinton for sexist reasons."

Please explicitly point to and or quote the statement where someone in this thread says "You are not feminist if you support anyone but Clinton." or whatever it is that made you feel ashamed.

Because I have read people who support Clinton say that they feel supporting Obama is fine if it's for the right reasons, but they don't like the sexist reasons SOME people have for supporting him over her.

Here's the thing:

If you vote for Hillary because she's a woman, and women have been oppressed, isn't that basically the same principle as affirmative action?

I think so. As a woman and a minority, I hate that kind of thing. I don't want anyone to have any reason to think I got my job, title, or whatever because I was the "token" minority that was needed to make things look PC or fill a quota.

I'm not voting for Obama because he's a minority, or for Hillary because she's a woman. I have spent a lot of time reading about each candidate's records, actions, statements, etc. As I said, I'm not thrilled with Hillary for signing the In Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Yes, that's really so much more important than anything else right now. Let's spend time rabidly defending an institution that has a 50% failure rate.

I don't see how voting for Hillary because she's a woman is a good thing. How is it better than the men mentioned above who are Democrats, but refuse to vote for Hillary, so they will vote Republican if she is the Dem candidate? They're voting based on gender too.

MirandaJay, I can't speak for Femily, but the most obvious of those shaming/intimidation vote-for-Hillary-or-you-betray-women lines is right at the end of Morgan's essay:

As for the “woman thing�?

Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.

She didn't say "because I'm Robin Morgan and I've decided that Hillary is the best candidate for our country." She didn't say, "because I, personally, prioritize women's issues over other issues competing candidates might have greater investments in." She said "because I'm a woman."

So if Femily's a woman, too, she's not voting appropriately.

Or maybe when Morgan says things like (speaking of Hillary having “found her voice�):

There’s not a woman alive who, if she’s honest, doesn’t recognize what she means.

Well, actually, when Hillary first said that, I was shocked at the melodramatic air of it. I found Hillary’s line rang totally false, and no, I have no idea what she could have meant if she meant it honestly. I understand a writer finding “voice� but I attribute that to a consistency in writing craft. If I “found my voice� as a regular person would I forever after know what to say? Was it lost before, and therefore everything I ever said before finding it was untrue? Or maybe "voice" in this case just applies to orators, but then, why would every woman understand it? The whole concept is boggling. But the implication is that maybe if I were more of a Woman, it wouldn’t be…

Anyhow, these definitions of what Women are, and what they do (or should do) are essentialist, exclusionary, and ultimately ridiculous (which, besides the fact that its best parts are derivative, and its worst parts (the racial analogies) are disgusting, is why I don’t find this essay useful or compelling).

Come off it Femily. Ashamed? Could you please point to "some of the things that Clinton supporters here have said" that make you feel ashamed for voting for Obama?

I don't feel ashamed. I just feel like people want to make me feel that way because of my vote. Morgan wants to make me feel stupid for my vote, and those who see nothing wrong with her essay must feel the same way. That's what this entire discussion is about.

"Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because her progressive politics are as strong as her proven ability to withstand what will be a massive right-wing assault in the general election. I support her because she knows how to get us out of Iraq. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter� with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first US woman president, but as a great US president."

This woman wrote an essay on why she is excited for and backing a particular candidate.

This is her opinion. Take it for what it is worth and just get the hell over it already.

MirandaJay - My thoughts exactly. In addition, Obama isn't all he's cracked up to be. For example, he brags incessantly about not taking money from lobbyists while he has them as advisers.

I brought that up in a comment to an Obama supporter in LiveJournal land. He deleted my comment. Guess the truth hurts sometimes.

This is her opinion. Take it for what it is worth and just get the hell over it already.

Gee. It's not much of a stretch to imagine why you might be fond of an essay that tells other women what they should do.

I haven't read all the comments, since there are loads of them, and this topic may be more or less dead, but I have to add my old two cents on the "Clinton vote=proud feminist" issue. Are the female supporters of Clinton NOT bothered by the fact that she has put up with her husband's womanizing for years, presumably because her marriage has been beneficial to her in a myriad of ways? I'm not anti-Clinton. I am a fan of Bill Clinton's presidency (with some caveats) and I agree that Hillary is more experienced, more policy-oriented and better qualified than Obama. I do however support Obama because I feel he is a more viable candidate, will draw more voters into the election, is strong and practical in his positions, and is more in touch with the economic atmosphere that us common folks are dealing with day to day. Yeah, he can come across as bombastic and naive, but there will NEVER be a *perfect* candidate!

But, honestly (and I kind of hate to say this) as a woman I find that I cannot respect Hillary because I feel that she has allowed herself, for personal gain, to be abused and devalued in her marital relationship.

I realize that this is not in any way relevant to her qualifications for the presidency. I just had to say, it is weird to me that the self-proclaimed feminist supporters of Hillary Clinton have overlooked the whole shunned (forgive my lack of a better word)-wife issue. I mean, you can't get much more nonfeminist than that!

The Clintons' marital problems aren't even a blip on my radar. Why should I give a damn about that?
I just believe that, to be blunt, if you're a feminist, if you're a woman, you're nuts to even consider voting for Yet Another Man for President.
Especially when Clinton's policy positions are fairly similar to Obama's, only better mapped out and with more real experience behind them.

And on the Iraq war vote: Obama HADN'T BEEN ELECTED TO THE SENATE YET, so people need to quit pretending he's some Crusader for International Justice because he didn't vote for the resolution. It's a flat-out bullshit argument.

You want change for women? You want to slap the patriarchy upside the head and make it shut up about how women should stay home and bake cookies? You want to put a big dent in sexist double-standards and stereotypes? Here's a real chance to make that happen for once. This is everything feminists have been working toward since the Suffragist movement and you're going to let it slip through your fingers because right-wing white male pundits have castration anxiety and because she voted on one resolution the same way nearly every other member of Congress did? Flippin' bananas.

For anyone interested, you can see the Senate vote breakdown for the use of force against Iraq here:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237#position

And Hillary Clinton's Senate record (every bill she has sponsored or co-sponsored) by following this link and clicking the tabs. There's also a lot of bullshit being propagated around the Web about her not achieving anything except naming some holiday or library or some bullshit like that. It's also worth noting how many women's issues are represented among the bills she has sponsored.

http://clinton.senate.gov/senate/legislation/

Yeah, my mom just told me that Hillary single-handedly filibustered for Plan B. I haven't double-checked that or anything, but my mother is very politically attuned.