Via Racialicious, there’s a good interesting article from The Nation, Race to the Bottom, partially a retread of the sexism v. racism issue in the Democractic presidential primary process. Good overview of what's been going on if you're not living and breathing this stuff. But there’s one section of the article that stopped me in my tracks. It’s part of a quote from Frances Kissling,
The implications of all this for the future of feminism depend significantly on the outcome of the primary, says Kissling. "If Clinton wins, the older-line women's movement will continue; it will be a continuation of power for them. If she doesn't win, it will be a death knell for those people. And that may be a good thing--that a younger generation will start to take over."
Er, I’m hoping there was some context that got removed, because damn. What a great way to make a struggle a war. Watch out older feminists. If Clinton doesn’t get the nomination, start packing for Shark Island now. I mean, come on now. Obviously I support young women (or a wider perspective attributed to younger women) playing a more important role in the feminist movement, but that doesn't have to mean older women are kicked out entirely. Sheesh.
Definitely check out Latoya’s take on the whole article over at Racialicious.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "Race to the Bottom" of a nefarious scheme from young feminists?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/7389
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
See, I actually thought Kissling's quote was dead on. But I didn't think about it in terms of a generational thing, as much as I did an institutional feminism thing. Like I wrote in my Nation piece on a similar topic, I really think that the way a lot of mainstream feminist orgs have been handling the election just epitomizes what is wrong with the paradigm they're working under - and frankly, I think the spotlight the election has put on that probably will mean a lot of things with change within in the movement, no matter who wins the nomination.
Jess, I agree. I just don't think the solution is "get out of the way granny." And I don't think it's fair that we get painted as saying that when we talk about things needing to change.
Does this remind anyone else of the scenes in Iron-Jawed Angels, when the older suffragettes and the younger suffragettes were conflicting? They did have different tactics and priorities, but they were working towards the same goals, most of the time.
True, true. Though why is it that when you said "get out of the way granny," all I could think of was this?
I always love these arguments about young women/older women and the election. Ah, of course men -- young or old -- can't be "real" players in any of this since, of course, we're the enemy.
Sheesh!
Why is it when men are absent from the conversation (the horror!), it's assumed that we think they're the "enemy?" Please.
I really don't think the outcome of the primary is that significant anymore. People are already disenchanted with Hilary or convinced supporters of Obama are anti-woman, and their opinions aren't going to change just because a victor has been declared.
Yeah, maybe people will unite around the Democratic nominee, but that doesn't mean everyone will be happy about it. God knows I'll be pissed if the DNC tells black voters that the technical winner whom they supported nearly in full isn't "electable" enough, and I'm sure Clinton supporters will bear their own grudges as well should the inverse occur.
This piece is probably the best article I've read on how sexism, racism, and generational politics have played out in this election. I especially like that it captured the covert and overt forms of discrimination that the candidates have faced.
I'm a little disappointed with this post. Why just pluck out one random passage that's a quote from someone else and doesn't capture the piece's argument at all?
While it touched on the generational divide, I think it was more as Jessica described, that for a variety of reasons, this was more about institutional, mainstream feminism. It certainly wasn't as simple as out with the old in with the new, as you imply.
If the only people voting were feminists, then we could use the primary as an indication of where feminism is and where it's going. As things are, though, I think it's just a prominent issue that emphasizes and enflames pre-existing schisms.
Astute observation, Robos A Go Go.
(Or less pretentiously, I agree with you. Many or (I'd guess) most people voting aren't self-aware feminists, so how can we really say what is happening/will happen in the big picture?)
I don't know if it's so much "older women" as it is second-wave feminism.
As a middle eastern feminist, I have gotten more attitude and contempt from the "younger feminists" who were my own age than older ones.
I find popular culture to be sexist and proud of it. At least people react to racism (thankfully). But sexism is considered cool and I'm sick of arguing about this and that wave and this and that generation of feminists and not getting any results.