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 Marcia on -
It seems my comments and view need clarification. I'm not referring to feminist values, but rather feminine energy. This is to take nothing away from the good and strong characteristics and intentions that Barack Obama has demonstrated, but feminine energy he does not have in the same way that Hillary has. The Earth, in my view, needs that energy in leadership, especially in this country, which has so much influence on to the rest of the world.
-
Permalink Reply by Nina S on -
Hi, Marcia & Joyce...
How interesting, tx for your comments. I agree so fully re: the need for 'feminine' energy, but in my view, Barack has evidenced more of it than Hillary. I've seen him as being more receptive, listening with greater respect, and seeming to be more relationally attuned to whoever he's speaking to than Hillary.
She reads to me as though she's going through the paces to get the job, really wants it, but the fact that she's got speech writers writing her words, and seems to be stooping to more dirty political maneuvering than Obama is repelling me.
But I also wonder: what do you mean by feminine values, feminine energy?
As I said, from my perspective, and my definitions, he's got more of it going on than Hillary...
-
Permalink Reply by Joyce Baker on -
Just to clarify, I said 'pro-feminist' values, not female values. That was the point of my post, I guess - that just being a female does not guarantee that you possess a particular set of values, any more than being of a particular ethnic group. Specifically, I see Hillary staying well within the confines of the 'respectable' issues, and playing the game, while I see Obama as willing to step outside the box and make up new rules. Those things correspond with feminism, to me.
-
Permalink Reply by Joyce Baker on
-
Can you clarify what demonstrates 'feminine energy' and in what way Hillary possesses it while Obama does not? Is it a simple matter of your gender, or are you talking about beliefs, values, actions?
-
Permalink Reply by Marcia on
-
What I'm talking about is something that is partly part of our culture, partly part of our gender. There are things that make up the experience of being a woman which, I believe, are in greater need in leadership on the planet, and especially in this nation. This may sound esoteric, but it is something I embrace as being important to honor and to promote. Feminine energy is partly tied to the tides and the moon, our cycles which promote life. Those things, the parts which are tied to gender, may not be too easy to put a finger on, but I know they are missing.
When Nancy Pelosi talked about the Congress doing things under her leadership with the children in mind and sat at the dais with her grandchildren, I had hope for a better future in this country. Has it translated into policy differences? I don't know that the news media captures how or when this energy actually makes a difference in the leadership she brings to Washington, but if we had a woman leader of the Senate, Nancy as Speaker of the House, and a woman President, I believe things would shift in some profound ways.
Another thing about our culture and gender differences is that in this culture men are taught passive agressiveness as a major way of being. Unless a male has had serious teaching and work to relieve himself and those in his sphere of influence of this challenging way of behaving, his desire to control will win out over reason. I don't see that Obama has done this work; in fact, some of his comments to Hillary have shown otherwise. A woman will yield much more easily, even if she has determination and stamina beyond what people expect to see in a woman.
That combination of being able to withstand pressure, be committed to a goal and still able to yield at the right time -- is, in woman, often referred to as women's intuition. I think women have this intuitive ability - either by design or by teaching - maybe a bit of both, but much more than most men....and I think, from watching both Obama and Hillary, that she definitely is more gifted in this regard, and her time in the U.S. Senate and what she accomplished there is a testament to this.
In spite of what I perceive to be unfair characterizations of Hillary Clinton in the news media, she acts with grace under pressure - possibly more pressure than any woman has been subject to in a leadership position in this country. The qualities I like about her - in terms of feminine energy, as opposed to policy differences - include how I see her interact with her daughter and her commitment and loyalty to her family, in spite of very serious obstacles. This commitment to making relationships work is also a feminine energy gift that I think is more profound in women, in general, than in men.
Obama may have abilities in this regard, but he also grew up in the competitiveness of male-locker-room culture in the U.S., and that competitiveness, while helping him in this election, is counter to the prevalence of feminine energy I think we need more of.
As for policies, Obama is pro-nuclear energy. Is that a sound, sustainable idea? At least Hillary is agnostic on it, which to me means she is willing to consider the problems. My preference was John Edwards, who was anti nuclear energy. I think the continuation of nuclear energy and nuclear warhead is a matter of life and death - for the Planet.
That was one of my litmus tests. When Edwards dropped out of the race, feminine energy needs won out as my next most important issue. Had she been pro-nuclear energy, as Obama is, I would have possibly sat out this election, which would have been difficult, given what we've had with Bush.
I apologize for the long message, but the reply to this query is tough to verbalize, and perhaps I've still not done the topic justice.
-
Permalink Reply by Catherine Hollingsworth on -
I couldn't agree more! I believe that as women, the most important aspect of having the "First Woman President" is to make sure that she can be the most effective, ethical, talented and amazing person to represent our gender, that we can find. It would be a shame to allow someone other than our best possible representative to tarnish the possibilities for other women who might venture into this arena in our rush to get a female into the White House. You know there would be those who would say that everything she failed at was because she was a female, and that was why we shouldn't have one to begin with. I know this makes for really big boots to fill, but we should not take this lightly. I support Obama for this moment in time as I see him as a world visionary, and in the long run, this is more important to the good of the whole than to vote for gender.
© 2008 Created by Bioneers on Ning. Create your own social network
