Jessica, you rock. I've been waiting months for someone to say this.

Thanks so much for writing this.

She critiques your characterization of the intensity of feminist infighting (preferring to frame it as "principled disagreements"), but she admits that she's "received vitriolic attacks from women" on this issue. It seems her personal experience supports your framing more than hers.

I totally see merits on both side of this argument. Same thing with the Clinton/Obama choice in general. I like him on foreign policy, I like her on domestic policy. But here's a plus: at least there's a good enough choice to be fighting over who is BETTER. Not the lesser of two evils.

You make good points. I think the Vote Obama ad smack dab in the middle of your column detracts a little from the objective position I think you try to take. That and the fact that you call out Clinton supporters for being intolerant of women supporting Obama but not vice versa. . .

This seems pretty simple to me. Are you a single issue voter or not? I have a hard time disagreeing with the assessment that electing Clinton will do more for feminism than electing Obama. But if that's not the only issue that you vote on, you should be weighing the candidates on a broader scope of issues. For me, Clinton's womanhood is at least canceled out by Obama's being black. NOW, as an organization, should be supporting Clinton b/c fundamentally they exist as advocates for a single issue. And if you want to be a senior member of the organization, you should probably do the same. But this isn't a lobbyist movement. It's prefectly reasonable to remain a very solid, principled feminist who has various other political principles that must be weighed when considering these types of issues. It seems that there is a conflict between feminists as single-issue political advocates and feminists as politically engaged citizens. To some extent, you just have to recognize the difference between the two groups.

Jessica, you are absolutely right, and Feldt's response does demonstrate exactly the problems you talked about.

Okay, wait, in the second to last paragraph you include this:

Marcotte, however, is quick to point out that "plenty of female Clinton supporters report being bullied by liberal men who support Obama."

There was a post, here, last week about whether it's more important to own the label "feminist" or to just believe in feminist principles. For a while, now, since the primaries, I have leaned toward believing in equality but having nothing to do with the feminist "movement," and to be honest I am bothered less by the 'old establishment' than I am by women my own age who are seem to have so much animosity.

The sisterhood I feel is with my personal friends and family, and not at all with "feminists," sadly.

Great piece, Jessica. I wish more people could acknowledge that disagreement doesn't mean a catfight -- it means diversity. Let's work to make the feminist tent bigger, not smaller.

I think that you're absolutely right, and I found Feldt's response irritating. You know, I wish that she was right -- that instead of "infighting," we're experiencing "principled disagreement." That would be great. But we're not. The Clnton/Obama thing has gotten nasty on more than one occasion (must I bring up the NY NOW press release or the Steinem op-ed?). And it's hardly the only issue that has caused bitter rifts. I think that Feldt certainly plays into one of them with yet again defending the stance that sexism is "worse" than racism. Do so many of my fellow white women actually believe that they get to make that call? And do we really see any way in which such a debate is either relevant or productive?

I'm a 45 year old feminist who voted for Clinton and I wanted to thank you so much for this great piece.

The lack of intersectional thinking among many high-profile white feminists who should know better by now is, frankly, driving me bonkers.

Yay, Jessica, thanks for writing this, it's awesome. And I think it's unfair of Steinem to say you're buying into the catfight stereotype. You made a calm, reasoned argument, without resorting to riduculous stereotypes like "old feminists are man-hating, no-fun, stick-in-the-muds, and young feminists are hip and fun and sexy!" *ahemIHateYouMaureenDowdahem*
I think maybe the reason that mainstream journalists and whatnot always see the feminist generational divide in those stupid terms is that they don't understand the real, substantive philosophical differences between generations, the greatest example being intersectionality. And you're right, we can't just ignore these differences and hope they go away, or splinter into factions -- we have to work through them and create a better feminist movement.

Sorry for the spamming--was registering an error on this end. But hey, it is driving me THAT bonkers. :-P

Above I meant Feldt, obviously, not Steinem. Whoops!

Almost 40 years ago I taught Catholic high school (that is hard to believe), but anyway ~ I told the classes then, and I will say today, there are essentially 2 types of people; people who love and people who hate.

Always, ALWAYS choose the ones who love.

Originally this was said in regards to gay people while teaching Catholic religion classes and I was hoping to impart fundamental wisdom, as opposed to merely picking one side or the other on the issue of treatment of gay people and then having to attack the other. The problem with the one side vs. the other is it burned the possibility of a walk across the bridge upon maturing some.

I was imagining this "feminist tent" and the system really breaks down, for dozens of reasons, if we are choosing sides based on priorities of issues, electoral politics or even leadership styles but when the room divides on those who promote love and those who do not - the division seems self-designed and promotes bridge building. Like I said, it is the only fundamental division I find useful, hopeful and allows for change.

This is a good article. Thank you for writing it. And it absolutely does not point to a catfight stereotype. There are many feminisms, and they are broad and diverse. Feminism is not monolithic and this should be something that drives us forward, not hold us back.

Jessica V, I have a point of fact for you... The woman from NOW you call an "executive" is actually a regional grassroots organizer. I'm pretty sure she makes less money than you do.

Also, it isn't just "second-wave" feminists like NY NOW Prez (with whom I disagree, and so does the majority of the NOW organization), getting into the political-emotional mix. In all fairness, Melissa Harris-Lacewell has said some pretty out-there things with relative impunity.

Just a beautifully written article, Jessica.

I have been so disheartened as of late seeing the vitriol among progressives during this primary season. I love reading political and feminist blogs not only to stay informed of the issues, but because I feel like I belong to a community of people with whom I can identify. To see the angry I-hate-Hillary/I-hate-Obama for this or that incendiary reason coming from groups of people I normally feel "part of" makes me feel like I've got to go hang out at a different party. Civil political discussion is fantastic and productive, but screaming at each other over the computer screen certainly is not.

So let's keep up the good work, and all vote for our favorite candidate with our eyes on the feminist goals of assuring equality and justice for women of all races.

I've yet to hear a truly logical argument for the conclusion that Clinton will help the cause of feminism. To be perfectly honest, I don't think she's a good candidate and I don't think she'll make a very good president. If I'm right she'll only be doing a disservice to feminism according to the same half-wrought logic I've heard supporting her on strict issues of identity. If I'm wrong, I simply don't understand how she'll really in any way be helping feminism?

Jessica, I

Nice piece Jessica.

I was one of those undecided-until-I-was-in-the-voting-booth voters. In the end though, it was the vitriolic arguments from Obama supporters that pushed me over the edge -- to Clinton. I know a lot of women have said that they were accused of betraying the feminist movement by voting against Clinton. I felt like I was being labelled a traitor to my generation, or even "selling out" to old school politics, by voting *for* clinton.

I think it's sad that an election season that started out the most optomistic we've had in eight years is slowly starting to devolve into name-calling and inclreasingly low attempts to swing a divided electorate to one side or the other. Don't we all, in the end, want the same thing?

Thanks Jessica, for highlighting the fact that we need to focus on open discussion of what we want instead of just accusing each other of "betraying the movement"

I agree with Feldt that the feminist movement has actually done a better job of incorporating diverse and minority viewpoints and voices than other civil rights movements. When people talk about racism in America, they are hardly ever talking about women. The racial justice movement is dominated by and entirely focused on men, and the most well known women scholars and thinkers of color write about their experiences and analyses of racism within feminist dialogues more than race-relations conversations, because women of color are very marginalized in discussions about race.

You might be right about the division between leading feminist organizations and many younger feminists, but as a younger feminist who is not really in touch with those organizations, I still find that I agree with them a whole lot of the time, including about voting for Clinton. Which is merely anecdotal evidence, but suggests to me that in fact as Rebecca Walker said, these rifts and disagreements aren't necessarily something so new. They are fundamental and complex challenges that we all continue to grapple with.

Thanks Jessica-- This was a great article.

I remember reading the Robin Morgan piece and thinking, for the first time in my life, that I actually felt truly alienated from second-wave feminists. I always had my differences with certain elements of the movement, especially on the racism and classism front, but the idea that I prefer Obama because I don't like "yucky power"... That felt like a real F*** you from the second wave.

I prefer Obama because he voted against the war and prefer his foreign policy, which I see as a deeply feminist issue. If women from other countries don't count as women, I can't get on that particular feminist bus.

For me what it really comes down to is that Obama has a better shot at winning, and not swinging a bunch of moderate districts to Republicans. If we lose those districts, and if we lose the white house... Well, I don't see how that will help women. And honestly, Clinton's willingness to throw the entire democratic party under the bus (by attacking the guy who will probably be the nominee in ways that will weaken him in the general election, for example) really strikes me as a terrible strategy.

I guess I'm just a great big anti-feminist. Yucky, yucky power.

Feminists can support either candidate for totally valid feminist reasons. I just wish we could all recognize that.

I spent my senior year of college researching the historical roots of generational schisms within feminism (for my thesis) and the best I could come up with was "It's complicated, yo."

Jessica-

Great piece in The Nation. I would love to read in more detail about your reaction to Feldt's response. Seems like this might be just the opportunity for dialogue you were talking about.

I read the article and thought it was a good article, but there is something that just didn’t sit well with me. Since I wasn’t sure what it was, I figured I would ruminate on it for awhile.

I think I now know what makes me uncomfortable.
I think this argument of voting your vagina or voting for a female president just cause she is a woman is a sexist argument all the way around. A kind of damned if you do, damned if you don’t thing. The double edged sword that has always been held over women has yet reared its ugly head again and all we do is feed it. I am guilty of this just as much as anyone. It takes a lot of soul searching to say that.

What it amounts to is that you can use this argument now for every woman candidate. The undercurrent or what is not being said is actually what apes me. It makes the base of the argument that there are NO qualified women and the only reason to vote for one is because you ARE one.

Clinton is well qualified for the job. There is not much that separates the two democratic candidates that are left. So this idea that you are voting against your conscience if you vote for her does not make that much sense to me. I think that if this was a different female candidate like if this was Nancy Regan running and not Hilary Clinton I could understand it. I definitely would not vote for her.

What is going on seems more like what happened to Bella Abzug when she ran for mayor of NY. Once the elections go on, no one wants to hear the woman speak. :( She was amazing but Koch was just a more appealing character. That of course has nothing to do with ability, but it always seems to come down to that for women.

Anyway, I think you should vote for who you want. Any of the three candidates will be better than Bush. Gawd, that dog really set the bar low. I just think we need to be careful not to help the misogyny along and just assume that the Clinton supporters are the old, whiny, and voting their vagina types. Some of us are not that old and are voting because we like her best of the three candidates that are left.

"For me what it really comes down to is that Obama has a better shot at winning, and not swinging a bunch of moderate districts to Republicans. If we lose those districts, and if we lose the white house... Well, I don't see how that will help women."

Yeah, great points.

Ughhhhhh. I didn't like the way that you mentioned how Hillary supporters are being so mean to Obama supporters, but then failed to mention that the reverse is also true. I'm a Hillary supporter and maybe you should spend some time in my shoes because I experience that denigration every day from Obama supporters. I get accused of being one of those "obnoxious feminists who hate men" all the time by female Obama supporters. Maureen Dowd's latest column calling us "shoulder pad feminists" is just another example. I'm really tired of it. And if you're going to write about the shit being slung one way, how about mentioning the shit being slung the other way?

I feel your article, like most others, generates more heat than light.

Jessica,
I thoroughly enjoyed your article and am shocked that anyone would find fault in it. As a man I am well aware that I cannot relate to the struggles of the "feminist movement," past or present, but I am thrilled to check your site daily and read the brilliant postings.
Those who would comment negatively to what you wrote truly don't know the Feministing.com story. This site is a place where ANYONE can discuss feminism. It is an inclusive movement, and your suggestion that knee-jerk unity not be the first response to any disparities of thought is right on.
It seems that a simplified compromise on the principles of a "Feminist Front" would create a movement with which several women (and "FE-men-ISTS) could not identify.
I applaud your article and thank you for kicking this site into gear. It is enlightening to read your posts and the responses of women and men involved in some aspect of the... well... "movement."
Cheers!

“I think that Feldt certainly plays into one of them with yet again defending the stance that sexism is ‘worse’ than racism.�

I guess it depends upon what you're measuring in order to define “worst�. I think it's unambiguously a larger and more pervasive problem on the global scale. In terms of status, that's a bit harder because the relative status of women varies so much. It's arguable that women in the US and Europe have higher status than racial minorities, all things being equal. But that's not true in some other places.

But, to me, the fact that sexism is a problem in every nation of the world and that the relative status of women is so much worse than racial minorities in many parts of the world, indicates that it's the larger problem.

I mean, look: think about the level of outrage for various racial-related incidents and then compare that to the outrage generated (or, really, not generated) by sexist incidents. There basically isn't much racial slavery in the world and apartheid in South Africa preoccupied North American and Europe for years. In contrast, there is actual trafficking of women in many parts of the world—which is actual slavery—as well as what amounts to a slavery of women by their husbands in large portions of the world. And yet basically no one in NA or Europe is out there protesting this on a daily basis.

Furthermore, when you look at sexual violence against women, and add that into the equation as part of sexism, then you get far, far more actual violence perpetuated on the basis of sex than race.

I know that it rubs some people the wrong way to make this comparison, and it makes everyone uncomfortable, but the fact that this is a matter in dispute at all is a sign of how little sexism is taken seriously anywhere in our culture or any other. If it was taken seriously, it would be the #1 social issue, by a large margin.

Finally, I think that the older leadership is right to not include "-isms" other than sexism in their bailiwick. You solve social problems like these by focusing on them with intensity and worrying about other stuff waters down the effort. Yes, I'm aware that theory indicates a connection between all of them. That's fine for theorists, not nearly as important for actual getting things done in the real world. I think that feminism has been doing itself a real disservice by putting on its plate the concerns about other social injustices. Worse, many of the people with whom it's tried to ally itself don't welcome the association. The big ones—the gay rights and the racial minority rights communities—don't even return the favor, too often their activists are actually hostile to feminism.

And the thing is, any of us as individuals don't have to choose only one issue and community to be active within. I'm active in gay rights, it matters a great deal to me. I'm not an activist on racial issues, but I feel strongly about them and speak up as often as I can. I don't feel like being a feminist means I can't be committed to other things, so it's not a choice we have to make. But within feminism, I don't feel like I need to worry about anything other than sexism. Especially in the case of feminism because, as per above, I think the problem is bigger, more deeply entrenched, and has less broad social support than even gay rights does in NA and Europe now.

I mean, you can see this easily online. The last few years have really opened my eyes about how far we have to go against sexism. Left-wing web sites are still notoriously sexist. Places that will never tolerate a single racist or homophobic comment still allow a great deal of sexist and misogynist commentary.

Finally, one thing that bothers me about a lot of the commentary here (and elsewhere) is the identification of enemies in a very reckless manner. I think of this because of how Jessica here is responding to the accusation that talking about the conflicts within feminism isn't a bad thing and should be done. But I can easily imagine the situation being reversed, where Jessica comments caustically on some article in some media outlet talking about the conflict and asserting some anti-feminist motive for doing so (to sow discontent, probably). This is just my impression and has to do with my needing to take feministing in smaller doses.

Amen, Jessica

@semicolon: you're damn right; it IS complicated!!

I've been told I hate women because I support Obama. Even here, I worry that if I post something that isn't pro-Clinton, people will bash me or whatever... All I know is that I've been a feminist since the day I learned what the word meant -- and being a 2nd grade Catholic school feminist is tough work!

And it's not that I hate Hillary -- I think she's fantastic... I just don't agree with her "politics," which says a lot: we can look at 2 racial/social minority candidates and vote for them on issues & policy.

You make good points. I think the Vote Obama ad smack dab in the middle of your column detracts a little from the objective position I think you try to take.

beigelights, I hardly think Jessica dictates which ads The Nation runs on their website.

Thanks, all - for your comments and insights. Hype, I actually DID point out that Hillary supporters are catching shit too - but the election tension wasn't really the focus of the piece, I was more interested in what that tension revealed about the movement...

Keith Ellis: Excellent post! I think the points you spelled out should be the things we discuss.

It would be great if the younger feminists who support Obama (and especially those who seem to really dislike Hillary) would acknowledge how much she is paving the way for other women to run for president. She is taking all of the misogyny at a level never really seen before. I do believe that the media coverage will be analyzed and lessons will be learned from this, and that will benefit the next high level woman candidate.

If Jessica Valenti isn't a part of the "feminist elite" now, I'm sure that in about 30 years she will be, when she's about 50 and you know, one of those older feminists.

I had THREE male candidates I would have voted for before Clinton. Kucinich, Edwards and Richardson. That choice was taken away from me and now I'm left with my 5th and 6th choices who, from what I can tell, are a lot a like. So yeah, I don't get to vote for a candidate that I actually care about, so I'm going to vote for the person who most reflects my identity. I don't feel bad about saying that. This is what politics is, when there is a candidate from the north they pair him (yes, him, and since Clinton won't win it will always be a him and I seriously doubt we will have another shot at a female president, so, way to go everyone.) with a southern candidate. To appeal to the southern constituency because it reflects their identity. Is this horrible?

Whenever I say I am voting for Clinton people always say "well, I guess as long as you aren't voting for her just because she's a woman" but when I hear men or black people say they are voting for Obama I NEVER hear anyone say to that black male "Well, as long as you aren't voting for him just because he's black."

This whole thing is just so stupid.

Dio: "I've yet to hear a truly logical argument for the conclusion that Clinton will help the cause of feminism."

This is unbelievable to me. It isn't like Hillary is Ann Coulter.

Hillary introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act, to help address pay discrimination.

She is prochoice and spoke out against the Partial Birth Abortion ban in 2007. She also spoke at the March for Women's Lives. She battled the FDA for three years to get Plan B over the counter.

To me, Hillary is a feminist leader.

Of course I am more comfortable with Obama setting a 16 month deadline for bringing the troops home or not voting to go to war with Iraq, but is it fair to cancel out the many *feminist* things Hillary has done?

Dio, have you ever even researched Hillary's positions? Or are you anti-choice? I just don't get it.

Either Hillary or Obama would help the cause of feminism a hell of a lot more than McCain.

Dio: "I've yet to hear a truly logical argument for the conclusion that Clinton will help the cause of feminism."

This is unbelievable to me. It isn't like Hillary is Ann Coulter.

Hillary introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act, to help address pay discrimination.

She is prochoice and spoke out against the Partial Birth Abortion ban in 2007. She also spoke at the March for Women's Lives. She battled the FDA for three years to get Plan B over the counter.

To me, Hillary is a feminist leader.

Of course I am more comfortable with Obama setting a 16 month deadline for bringing the troops home or not voting to go to war with Iraq, but is it fair to cancel out the many *feminist* things Hillary has done?

Dio, have you ever even researched Hillary's positions? Or are you anti-choice? I just don't get it.

Either Hillary or Obama would help the cause of feminism a hell of a lot more than McCain.

Sorry for the double post. :/

I loved the article, Jessica, and I completely understand where you're coming from in regards to the pressure by the feminist powerhouses on the east coast.

However, I find myself struggling with the exact opposite problem. As a young midwestern activist, I am surrounded by ire and sometimes utter hatred by young Obama supporters at the thought of supporting Clinton. It has gotten so bad, I often fear that many Obama backers will refuse to vote if he does not get the nomination. Somehow, I can't see how this is good for feminism. I believe everyone should have the right to vote for and support the candidate of their choosing, but it's remiss of us as young feminists to act as if this fight is one sided. I think the real problem is that our differences have become a fight at all when they should just be part of a greater conversation. Nonetheless, I thank you for opening up the dialogue.

I loved the article, Jessica, and I completely understand where you're coming from in regards to the pressure by the feminist powerhouses on the east coast.

However, I find myself struggling with the exact opposite problem. As a young midwestern activist, I am surrounded by ire and sometimes utter hatred by young Obama supporters at the thought of supporting Clinton. It has gotten so bad, I often fear that many Obama backers will refuse to vote if he does not get the nomination. Somehow, I can't see how this is good for feminism. I believe everyone should have the right to vote for and support the candidate of their choosing, but it's remiss of us as young feminists to act as if this fight is one sided. I think the real problem is that our differences have become a fight at all when they should just be part of a greater conversation. Nonetheless, I thank you for opening up the dialogue.

I loved the article, Jessica, and I completely understand where you're coming from in regards to the pressure by the feminist powerhouses on the east coast.

However, I find myself struggling with the exact opposite problem. As a young midwestern activist, I am surrounded by ire and sometimes utter hatred by young Obama supporters at the thought of supporting Clinton. It has gotten so bad, I often fear that many Obama backers will refuse to vote if he does not get the nomination. Somehow, I can't see how this is good for feminism. I believe everyone should have the right to vote for and support the candidate of their choosing, but it's remiss of us as young feminists to act as if this fight is one sided. I think the real problem is that our differences have become a fight at all when they should just be part of a greater conversation. Nonetheless, I thank you for opening up the dialogue.

I'm going to write my thoughts on some of this on Monday and Tuesday. But an important point to make is this:

There is a difference between being a feminist in the philosophical or definitional sense and being a feminist activist. What is perfectly acceptable for the former type of person to say may not be perfectly fine with the latter type of person, especially if she/he is being paid by women for the work.

I'm going to write my thoughts on some of this on Monday and Tuesday. But an important point to make is this:

There is a difference between being a feminist in the philosophical or definitional sense and being a feminist activist. What is perfectly acceptable for the former type of person to say may not be perfectly fine with the latter type of person, especially if she/he is being paid by women for the work.

I'm going to write my thoughts on some of this on Monday and Tuesday. But an important point to make is this:

There is a difference between being a feminist in the philosophical or definitional sense and being a feminist activist. What is perfectly acceptable for the former type of person to say may not be perfectly fine with the latter type of person, especially if she/he is being paid by women for the work.

I'm going to write my thoughts on some of this on Monday and Tuesday. But an important point to make is this:

There is a difference between being a feminist in the philosophical or definitional sense and being a feminist activist. What is perfectly acceptable for the former type of person to say may not be perfectly fine with the latter type of person, especially if she/he is being paid by women for the work.

"I prefer Obama because he voted against the war" - mmministerygoodness

Um, not to nitpick, but when exactly did he do that? He was not in the Senate yet, when the original vote took place, and he voted for continued funding of the war (which I don't disagree with, and am not trying to equate with the vote to use force to begin with). But this is the kind of misinformation I think is running all too rampant in this election, which serves to artificially magnify the differences between the candidates.

Keith Ellis, I agree with your sincere and eloquent comment 110%

I really don't think there is any way for me to say it better than you just did - thank you for going out on a limb and expressing what I have been feeling with increased distress more and more often.

As far as the Democratic primaries are concerned, I have faced ALLOT of pressure for supporting Hillary Clinton. I have a Hillary water bottle and sweatshirt that I use regularly and I live in California which is a state who went to her. I've faced everything from sneers to unprovoked shouting. The problem that really upsets me is that most of the arguments against Clinton and demonizing her are half truths or simply misconceptions spurred by constant and loud repetition of the idea that she is both too conservative and too liberal. She gets the entire shoulder of the blame for the Bush Administration's False Intelligence regarding the war in Iraq and Obama, who ADMITS that he doesn't know how he would have voted if presented with the intelligence at the time, didn't have a vote at the time and did not vote against the war.

Since Obama has joined the Senate, their voting records have been identical. Hillary has come out on the side of low income Americans, children, and women for years. I'm not anti-Obama but I am horrified by the slander piled against Senator Clinton. Please please please LEARN about what she has done and what she PLANS to do for American if elected. Please learn about the woman, not the sound bites the biased media plays. Clinton is an inspiration to me and an absolute hero in many respects. I take allot of offense that feminists will reject her and say hateful things which are often based on fallacy.

Anyways, that is my piece. I used to come here every single day but lately I feel alienated from the community and read less and less :( Its really unfortunate.

Kate21:"I'm not anti-Obama but I am horrified by the slander piled against Senator Clinton. Please please please LEARN about what she has done and what she PLANS to do for American if elected.... Clinton is an inspiration to me and an absolute hero in many respects."

I completely agree. I couldn't believe that some commenters were saying that they didn't see how electing Clinton would help feminism.

To me, Hillary Clinton IS a feminist leader (whether or not she voted for the war). I don't see how someone could disagree if they actually looked at what she has done (getting Plan B over the counter, introducing the Paycheck Fairness act, etc.)