To: Tedra Osell; Wendy Shanker

The smoke has cleared on Junior Super Tuesday (sounds like some kind of Happy Meal combo) and Hillary is standing proud and tall in her bright red suit, while Obama seems to be turning in McCain’s direction, steeling himself for the fight ahead (despite the fact that Hillary really is still in it to win it).

I have mixed emotions. On the one hand, I feel genuinely happy for Hill. It made me sad to think that such an accomplished, powerful woman would get bulldozed out of the race; twelve primary losses in a row had to sting. On the other hand, I’m getting pretty irritated by these primaries and impatient to put our eyes on the prize and make sure McCain and his eerily empty-eyed wife don’t move into the White House next.

Part of my irritation is fueled by the op-ed pages of most major newspapers, where right wing self-hating nuts like Charlotte Allen are manipulating this opportunity to write anti-woman missives. Allen’s piece isn’t even worth disputing, so I’ll just leave it up to the poor reader to check out how surprising it is that Allen apparently hasn’t taken note of any of women’s accomplishments since, well, ever. Interestingly, the Independent Women’s Forum, her buddies, haven’t said a word.

In those same pages was Linda Hirshman’s piece on how women are losing this opportunity to gather together as a voting bloc and swing the election. I like Linda, but I find the idea that all women would somehow cohere in values, opinions, and interests a little second wave essentialism. Linda’s worried that losing this election, and all the fall out among women who have come down on different sides of the primary, will be a fatal blow to feminism. I personally think that feminism is supposed to be about acknowledging the complexity and differences among women, and inspiring them to act on their convictions. Ever notice how no one is asking men why their vote is split among Obama and Clinton?

Like Wendy, I’m fascinated with the intersection of pop culture and politics. The other night NBC’s primary coverage included a long analysis of the influence of Saturday Night Live on Clinton’s successes in Ohio and Texas. I’m glad she took some opportunities—SNL and The Daily Show—to show her playful side. And I think it probably helped her tremendously—far more than another run in with ol’ Tim Russert would have. No doubt part of what has kept some people from voting for Hillary has something to do with that super annoying perception that women aren’t playful or funny (these people just need to meet Wendy Shanker). Using pop culture platforms to change this perception is a strategic move on the part of the otherwise fairly daft Clinton campaign.

And the race and dialogue continues….

The post Feminism Is Stronger Than One Election appeared first on Jewcy.

To: Tedra Osell; Wendy Shanker

I challenge anyone to make a simple argument about these primaries and gender politics after reading my girls, Wendy and Tedra, hash out the issues. Brava to you both. For the sake of dialogue, I do want to take issue with a few things: first and foremost, “women’s issues.” This is a phrase and a framework that gets under my skin. When I pitch stories to magazine editors at political or general interest magazines, I am constantly being told: “Oh, we did a women’s issues story last month.” Um, yeah, that was on eyeliner and I want to write about sex trafficking. Likewise, have you ever noticed what gets annexed into the “style section” of most major newspapers? Anything from women experts, articles that look at culture or psychology (even when it has nothing to do with fashion), and yes, my very own book (which is on the normalization of body hatred among young women). The dopes at the top aren’t going to stop using this empty phrase until we feminists do. There is no such thing as “women’s issues,” because just about everything under the sun is potentially important to and affecting women’s lives. In the context of this election, I’m not looking at these candidates wondering who does better on “women’s issues” because it’s not a helpful construct. I’m wondering, who is going to improve our reputation throughout the world, secure economic justice for more folks at home, and live everyday ethically and in service to the people (not his or her people, but the people). I also want to take issue with Wendy’s idea—which was most famously popularized by Gloria Steinem in the op-ed pages of the Times last month—that women are behind men of color when it comes to civil rights. I just don’t think that either/or kind of thinking is helpful. Sure, black men may have gotten the right to vote prior to women, but they have also endured the still-lingering legacy of slavery (poverty, exoticization, cultural depression). Rather than taking the bait of mainstream media and small-minded pundits, we should be refusing to pit women and men of color against one another in an oppression Olympics. None of us will be any better for it. And now for some new ideas… We are emotional creatures, even when we are also political animals. It’s no real surprise that all of us voted, in part, from our guts. In truth, the tipping point for me in deciding whether to pull the lever for Hillary or Barack was when I realized that I would be more devastated if he didn’t win than if she didn’t win (even though I would be sad in either case). What a totally bizarre and irrational voting rationale, no? But it’s the truth, and anyone who claims that they only vote on the issues is full of baloney. A huge part of why Barack has been so successful (especially among younger voters) is because he’s been able to inspire. I realize that his charisma won’t necessarily translate into the nitty gritty leadership skills needed that first day in The White House, but frankly, I’m too hungry for inspiration not to be swayed by it. When Barack says “Yes we can,” I tear up. I feel like I finally understand my parents’ stories about JFK and brazen optimism. I am proud to be an American for that moment. And beyond that, I’m suspicious of a campaign that doesn’t recognize how important hope is right now. Hillary’s camp has constantly led with the wrong messages—I’ve been doing this for years. Hope is just a word. Change is hard work. Yes, yes, and yes, but right now is not the time to harp on these issues. Now is the time to proudly declare yourself a new kind of leader. I know Hill has been falling back on this message in these desperate days, but it’s a little too little too late. As a young feminist, I am so cognizant of the wildly effective legacy I benefit from. Whether I’m buying my birth control or traveling alone to a speaking gig, whether I’m investing in my IRA or playing pick-up basketball, my gratitude to women like Hillary is never far from my mind. I’m thankful, and at the same time, I’m hungry. I want to be part of the next historical moment of earth-shattering social change. And right now, Barack looks like the person most hell bent on shaking things up.

The post There Is No Such Thing As “Women’s Issues” appeared first on Jewcy.

We asked three very smart feminist writers — Courtney E. Martin, Tedra Osell, and Wendy Shanker — to discuss the increasingly acrimonious gender-, ethnicity-, and generation-driven divisions among American women that this election has exacerbated.

[Most of the dialogue took place before the Texas and Ohio primaries–ed.]

From: Courtney E. Martin

To: Tedra Osell; Wendy Shanker

What is my obligation, as a feminist, in this incredibly thrilling political moment?

It’s a question that has alternately excited and plagued me for over a year now. Back in February of 2007, I wrote an essay exploring my own struggle over whom to support—Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton—in the upcoming primary season. Was I my mother’s daughter when I walked into that voting booth—knowing I was helping unravel the knot of power and masculinity by casting a vote for Hillary? Or did I pull the lever for the candidate who made me feel the most young and alive, the most renewed in my early idealism about this country and the meaning of participatory democracy?

And now, an entire year later, I still feel like I’m wading through a muddy pond. I’m dirty and happy and still not convinced that there is a right answer.

Which is why it has been so disheartening to see the intergenerational hubbub that has ensued over whether women—youngin’s like myself, in particular—are “bad feminists” if we don’t automatically support Hillary Clinton. Feminist sheroes like Robin Morgan, Gloria Steinem, and others have—I imagine unintentionally—pitted gender against race in recent op-eds, claiming that women who don’t vote for Hillary are like fish who don’t see the water they swim in. Morgan, in particular, painted an absolute caricature of young women: “Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten the status quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her.” Setting aside how patronizing Morgan’s tone is for a moment, I’d like to address the idea that feminism is one monolithic movement. These op-eds, and others like them, have essentially advocated a litmus test for feminism—vote for Hillary, or we’re kicking you out of the club. I’m sorry, but this is not the feminism that I inherited, nor is it the one I am enacting every day—proudly, by the way, Ms. Morgan—of my life. I am a truth pursued feminist, not a truth possessed feminist. I believe in starting with questions, not answers, with exploring the intersections of race, class, gender, not picking one street and stubbornly sticking to it. I believe that progress is a messy, complex undertaking—not a march forward in a straight line. I believe in endearing young women to my movement through joy, analysis, connection, not making them feel ridiculed for not already being a part of it. I believe in giving women the freedom to lead with all of their 10,000 different identities. I believe in making space for women’s blackness and their Christianity and their bisexuality and their poverty and their…. I voted for Barack Obama in the primary. It wasn’t an easy choice, but it was an inspired and honest one; I am inspired by his vision of democracy—one in which all of us are responsible for creating change. I think his charisma could serve us incredibly well on the global stage at this dangerous moment, and I like that he’s so committed to diplomacy. I also think that his face is the face of a new America—his biography reminds me of everything I love about this place. At the same time, I will be overjoyed if Hillary Clinton is elected. And if and until that time, I will do everything in my power to call out the sexist media that has often resorted to gender stereotypes when covering her campaign. I will encourage people to vote for the candidate they think would serve the country with the most honesty and vision. And if they pull the lever for Clinton, I will embrace them with open arms, toast to our embarrassment of riches, and watch the movement grow and grow.

The post Why This Feminist Is Voting For Obama appeared first on Jewcy.