Feminists for Obama?

Thanks to msinformed for sending me this article from the NY Times. Wow. It made my head spin. I almost don't know how to take it on whole scale so I think I'm going to do it piece by piece. So you know, the headline is Feminist Pitch by a Democrat Named Obama. The following is the very first paragraph of the article.

In the intensifying battle for the votes of Democratic women, Senator Barack Obama’s campaign is trying to turn years of feminist thinking on its head and argue that the best candidate for women may, in fact, be a man.

Here we go . . . Huh? Years of feminist thinking has said that the best candidate for women is a woman? Bullshit. First, it is bullshit because there is no "feminist thinking." There are feminists, feminist theories, and feminisms. There are some feminists and feminist theories that would argue that women will always represent women better because of their shared experiences. They would also argue that it is always better to vote for the woman because there is a need for descriptive representation, which means actual women representing women (also works for Blacks representing Blacks, etc.). There are several arguments that focus on the need for descriptive representation. One is that women will not see themselves as viable candidates for public office until there actually are women in office. Another is that seeing women in office will make women feel represented, which is symbolic representation. There are lots of other arguments as well.

However, other feminists and feminist theories argue that what people, including women, should worry about is substantive representation. Someone who substantively represents you is a politician who holds your policy preferences or most of them any way. Most of us are too complex to find any candidate who holds every single policy position we do and then also sees certain issues as salient as we do. For example, a candidate might agree with you on reproductive rights but it isn't that important to that candidate whereas another candidate also agrees with you but makes it central to her campaign.

These are just two of the many varied positions that feminists, feminisms, and feminist theories take. Hence, you "can't turn years of feminist thinking" on its head, because there is no monolithic feminist thinking. Rush Limbaugh just wants you to think there is. Next quote . . .

Mr. Obama, like the rest of the field, has little choice but to compete for women’s votes; 54 percent of Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa four years ago were women, as were 54 percent of Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire.

A problem throughout this article is that they equate women with feminists. Guess what. All feminists aren't women and all women aren't feminists. Competing for feminists' votes is likely a very different campaign strategy than competing for women's votes. While feminists as a group are extremely varied, women as a group are even more so.

Around the country, but especially in the early voting states, many of these women are engaged in a complicated conversation, with a hunger to make history often pushing them in one direction while more conventional considerations, like a candidate’s stand on the war in Iraq, pushing them in another.

Okay, applause on this quote! This is correct. Women actually hold very complicated policy positions that don't just center around being women. Yes, child care and health care issues matter to us, but so does the war.

“Women, I think, should take pride that Senator Clinton is running, the historic nature of her race,” Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said in an interview Thursday. “That’s a genuine sign of progress.” He said he tried to convey to his two daughters every day “that you’ve got the same opportunities and shots as everybody else.”

Two things that irk me here. First, I hate it when men talk about how they care about that women's stuff because they have daughters. Yuck. The media when questioning men's positions on "women's issues" also likes to get quotes from the men's "wives." Don't worry Mrs. Obama was quoted in this story about how Obama is down with the ladies. Second thing that irks me is that it is not such great progress to have a woman running for President. In fact, many women have run for president. (Victoria Woodhull in 1872 was the first.) Clinton's just the first to be taken semi-seriously.

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Senator John Edwards, was a notable exception when she told Salon.com last summer that Mrs. Clinton was “just not as vocal a woman’s advocate as I want to see” and relied too much on her sex as a rationale for her candidacy. But in less-noticed, more subtle ways, rival campaigns are advancing the argument that it is acceptable for a woman, even a feminist, to back someone other than the woman.

Yep, because you know us feminists, we've been thinking that there's no way we'd vote for any one else but Clinton. What?! Surely this author doesn't read many feminist bloggers. Lots of us feminists are supporting different candidates - Kucinich, Edwards, Obama. For example, BitchPhd writes an interesting post on why it is so important that Clinton is in the race and yet, also indicates that she doesn't plan on voting for Clinton in the primary.

And while my man CC is a huge Obama supporter, he knows how I'll feel about this quote. Mrs. Obama bluntly told 700 women activists linked by conference call Wednesday night, “We need you guys.” You're not going to win over this feminist by calling me a guy.

I know you're probably getting tired of this by now and so am I, but I can't resist.

The Obama campaign is, in some ways, subtly marketing its candidate as a postfeminist man, a generation beyond the gender conflicts of the boomers.

Beyond gender conflicts? Where's that? I want to go there. If you don't see gender conflicts, that means you can't represent women, because you can right wrongs if you don't see wrongs.

Here's all the evidence I need to see that he has no clue regarding the wrongs. On how Clinton has been treated in the campaign, “I don’t think she wants to be treated differently,” he said, “and I don’t think she has been treated differently than if she were a male candidate in this race.” Holy cow. If he thinks Clinton has been treated like every other candidate, he needs to look up the definition of sexism.

[Edited 2/5/08 -- I did end up voting for Obama. See why here.]