Practical solutions for people + planet
The First Woman President?
As I listen to the news, and hear friends debate about the relative merits of Hillary and Obama,I’ve been increasingly uncomfortable about the feminist argument that as women, we must support Hillary, as the first viable woman candidate.
My discomfort had many sources, including a sense that some were being blinded by gender loyalty, and weren’t fully seeing or acknowledging the depth of the racial history and legacy we all bear in this country. The recent articles by Linda Burnham (who hosted a panel at last year’s Bioneers on envisioning what a new feminist movement might look like) and Alice Walker (the wonderful author who joined us for Women Re-Imagining the World at last year’s conference, soon to become an hour-long radio special) reminded me of the racial schisms in the past feminist movement, and also of just how recently our friends and colleagues of color have suffered – and continue to suffer today from – racist systems and beliefs embedded in our culture in the past, and still real today.
This schism between the feminist and racial justice movements has deep roots, too, on both sides. During the sixties and seventies, for the ‘first wave of feminism,’ most women of color felt that it was an elitist movement led and defined by privileged white women, to the exclusion of women of color. And yet, at the very beginnings of the suffrage movement, in Seneca Falls, the white women who started it all were inspired by the equality and justice they witnessed in the treatment of women among the Iroquois Six Nations people, with whom they were friendly and close. So, the movement for women to have equal rights in this country is founded upon a cross-cultural collaboration.
As Alice Walker says, (I paraphrase) we are like goddesses who can see in many directions...witnessing the truth of the past, the present, and a hoped-for future, when we can all be free enough of the scar tissue and pain of our past to be able to relate to each other on our human merit, with consciousness, fairness and humility.
What do you think about the issue of gender and the electoral process? Should it be part of the discussion? Do we as women have a societal obligation to support a candidate because she is a woman?
My discomfort had many sources, including a sense that some were being blinded by gender loyalty, and weren’t fully seeing or acknowledging the depth of the racial history and legacy we all bear in this country. The recent articles by Linda Burnham (who hosted a panel at last year’s Bioneers on envisioning what a new feminist movement might look like) and Alice Walker (the wonderful author who joined us for Women Re-Imagining the World at last year’s conference, soon to become an hour-long radio special) reminded me of the racial schisms in the past feminist movement, and also of just how recently our friends and colleagues of color have suffered – and continue to suffer today from – racist systems and beliefs embedded in our culture in the past, and still real today.
This schism between the feminist and racial justice movements has deep roots, too, on both sides. During the sixties and seventies, for the ‘first wave of feminism,’ most women of color felt that it was an elitist movement led and defined by privileged white women, to the exclusion of women of color. And yet, at the very beginnings of the suffrage movement, in Seneca Falls, the white women who started it all were inspired by the equality and justice they witnessed in the treatment of women among the Iroquois Six Nations people, with whom they were friendly and close. So, the movement for women to have equal rights in this country is founded upon a cross-cultural collaboration.
As Alice Walker says, (I paraphrase) we are like goddesses who can see in many directions...witnessing the truth of the past, the present, and a hoped-for future, when we can all be free enough of the scar tissue and pain of our past to be able to relate to each other on our human merit, with consciousness, fairness and humility.
What do you think about the issue of gender and the electoral process? Should it be part of the discussion? Do we as women have a societal obligation to support a candidate because she is a woman?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by TC on -
I guess my question is what defines the power of the feminine?
Is it in contrast to masculine as some would like to present? or is it something more?
-
Permalink Reply by Nina S on -
I couldn't agree more, re: supporting the return of the feminine.
But I question whether the physical gender of a candidate necessarily correlates
to her embodying the feminine principal.
In this case, I wonder whether Obama may embody more of the feminine principal in
his way of being in the world than Hillary does.
What do you think?
-
Permalink Reply by Chantal on -
Oh now that's a provocative question, Nina! Barack's public manner does seem more reflective and collaborative, doesn't it?
Casting aside questions about the merit of voting according to allegiances with one particular tribe or another, I feel that black Americans have a social stigma in America that has yet to be remediated to the same level as that of female Americans. If one votes based upon "gap analysis," then to me the racial gap, not the gender gap is the one with the most pressing needs currently.
-
Permalink Reply by Susie-Q on -
I'm really enjoying the discussion here. This is the key question for me, too.
What if we don't have to decide? What if they both win?
-
Permalink Reply by Cali on -
More than anything, we must support someone that can soundly beat McCain. I'm sorry, but that is the fact we cannot afford to ignore. It is about being smart. We will suffer a lot more under McCain than Clinton. Polls show Clinton can beat McCain. Therefore, I support Clinton, who can also balance our budget, bring everyone healthcare, and support concerns for environment, etc. It's not at all about gender for me. It's about who can win. If not for that, it would be Ralph Nadar all the way for me!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Judith O'Keefe on -
Polls? Pretty fickle, not to be trusted, easily manipulated. I believe Obama has as good a chance as Clinton at beating McCain.
-
Permalink Reply by Jaymie on -
I'm in agreement with Judith on Obama's chances on getting elected. I feel Obama does embody the feminine principal. I see Obama as a collaborator, and a listener and therefore a better leader for the entire country. I see a more engaged citizenry under this form of leadership.
I see Clinton as someone who has aligned herself with the corporate patriarchy. I don't support this model of leadership. She doesn't represent the best we have in female leadership.
I have the utmost respect for Nadar. He has done more for the benefit of the greater good as a private citizen than any of the elected candiates. He serves to remind me that regardless of the outcome of the election I must remain diligently interested and involved in the causes in which I care.
-
Permalink Reply by Nina S on
-
I'm with you, Jaymie. While I appreciate the perseverance with which Hillary has sought to attain her goal, and her smarts, I do feel she's descended to a Karl Rovian level of tactics in this race with Obama, and find it a huge turn-off.
She seems to be behaving as the consummate politician, which means that she'll do and say anything to get elected, and I simply don't trust or believe her.
Whereas, watching and listening to Obama, he's the first candidate in my adult life that I believe is authentic. He is reflective, real, and writes his own speeches. He doesn't stoop to attack tactics to elevate his own stature.
He shows up with dignity and honesty, and offers all that coupled with a perspective that's not fraught with privilege, as Hillary's is.
The more I notice how hard it is, as a white American, to see my own privilege, the more important I feel it is that our next leader, especially in terms of international relations, is able to show up without that arrogance, that hubris, and that blindness that's so characterized the past 8 years.
While I'm not sure whether Obama is electable, I feel called to support his candidacy. I also think that, in a race with McCain, he'd win.
-
Permalink Reply by Vv on -
Great discussion. Thanks to all the contrubutors. It's Obama all the way for me. He is completely electable I think, for two reasons: 1) He's bringing new voters to the polls who wouldn't otherwise feel compelled to engage, and 2) unfortunately, it's far more tolerated in this country for people to mistrust (and therefore bash) women. On the latter point, I must admit that my gut gets riled here. But it's data that I think will influence both the fervor of Republican fire and more importantly the response to it once a Democrat has been selected. Simply put, I think American’s are far more likely to believe negative stories (whether truth or lies) about a woman than they are about a man, no matter the color. I sadden myself with that, but feel it’s true enough to say. Most importantly though, I’m voting with my values and Obama sings my songs beautifully.
-
Permalink Reply by Nina S on
-
I agree, Vonda, re: how saddened and rankled I am by the sexism, but I'm also appalled by Hillary's behavior, and choices. Check this out, by Michael Moore, on the Rev Wright fiasco!
Someone just noted to me recently how incredibly poignant this whole thing must be for Barack, as his primary wound is about his father abandoning him, and here he's had to denounce his father figure, the Reverend.
Also, it's just so interesting to me that Obama consistently displays more 'feminine' values of caring, empathy, receptivity and reflection than she does!
-
Permalink Reply by Marcia on -
In my view, we need more feminine energy in leadership on the planet. We've had quite enough of seeing what male energy in leadership has gotten us to. Not that male energy is bad or lacking; it's just that the Earth is waaaaay out of balance in terms of male energy.
Until we get plenty of feminine energy in leadership, I will be supporting more and more feminine energy to be in leadership positions. Already, Nancy Pelosi has changed things with her energy alone. We need more of that.
If Oprah were to run for President, now then we might have a candidate we ALL could support as our first choice.
As for tactics, both Obama and Clinton have gotten in the mud -- as politicians do in this culture. There is no higher ground on either side, and as someone who has viewed these Democratic Party struggles from the inside, I wish there were more integrity all around. Neither candidate has been pure to their professed ideals.
So, for me, it's still Hillary Clinton for President. Forgetting the huge amount of rhetoric from both campaigns, the feminine energy she will bring to the White House and to the county could help make huge shifts on the Planet.
-
Permalink Reply by Joyce Baker on -
Just because we have a female candidate does not mean we should automatically support her. Women, like men, come in many different flavors, from the most traditional to the most unconventional, and gender is no guarantee of pro-feminist values. I can't vote for Hillary because to me she represents the existing power structure and I see no likelihood that she would act against it. In this case, for me, class plays a stronger role than gender.
© 2008 Created by Bioneers on Ning. Create your own social network
