Not identifying with identity politics

I have always called myself a feminist. However, after reading all of the below, I'm beginning to think someone's going to knock on my door and revoke my feminist cred.

“Women felt this was their time, and this has been stolen from them,” said Marilu Sochor, 48, a real estate agent in Columbus, Ohio, and a Clinton supporter.

-- "Gender Issue Lives On as Clinton's Hopes Dim," NYT, May 19, 08

To Veronica Tonay, 48, a psychology professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz and a Clinton supporter, Obama has become a pop star, the contestant on "American Idol" who wins votes because he's cute, while the best singer is eliminated.

[...]

If Obama is the nominee, Tonay said, McCain will be just fine with her. "In the end, I won't vote for Obama because I don't know who he is, and I don't trust him," she said. "If McCain gets in, he would have a weak presidency, and we would have a Democratic Congress anyway. Obama could do more damage."

-- "Clinton-Obama Grudges Linger for Some Voters," WAPo, May 19, 08

"It shows how fragile the loyalty and commitment of women to a female candidate is. That's a pretty scary thing," says [Linda] Hirshman. "She can count on the female electorate to divide badly and not be reliable."

-- "Clintons' Female Fans Wonder 'What If?' -- and When?" SFChron, May 19, 08

My number-one objection to any candidate making the "Vote for me because I am a [fill in the blank]" argument: that line of reasoning validates electoral bigotry, because you've made it perfectly legitimate to vote against someone by virtue of them being a [fill in the blank]. Once you've made a demographic attribute a legitimate argument for electability, it's out there for good or for evil.

However, there are two arguments in the running for second place as to why I find the above statements ridiculous and eye-rolling. The first: posterity is a rotten reason to elect anyone to anything. Elect someone on their platform, not their demographic novelty.

The second, more serious argument: the Lysistrata-at-the-ballot-box act is only going to screw women. Whomever is the next president is going to be appointing a hefty percentage of the future Supreme Court. The Democratic majority in Congress is not ... how you say? Strong? Overwhelming? Left-leaning? Consider who's on the court now. Voting for McCain -- he of the up-is-down-black-is-white approach to "judicial activism" -- is a vote against your own legal self-interests.

Look, I feel like the election coverage has been steeped in sexism. You and I both know that if some South Carolinian had asked McCain, "How do we beat the [racial epithet]?," there would have been a huge uproar. (And no, just because a woman asked the original question does not make it any less misogynist.) The "Iron My Shirt" business was ridiculous, in part because so many people refused to see how it's as reductive and demeaning as holding up a poster at Obama reading "Pick my cotton" or Bill Richardson reading "Pick my grapes."

But the response to this sort of insidious and pervasive bigotry is not to threaten to take you ball and go home when the nation refuses to bow to the historic fist-timeness-of-it-all or when women refuse to fall into gender lockstep. It's to realize that the Clinton campaign may actually be a catalyst for gender equity in a completely unintended way: it's brought an ugly truth about America's subtle and persistent sexism to the national spotlight. We can take this opportunity to hammer home the point that women are not punchlines or punching bags. We are candidates that are allowed to stand or fall on the same merits as everyone else in the field.

Blaming other women for refusing to vote for the chick, blaming younger women for being insufficiently grateful to their elders, blaming the patriarchy for what was, by many accounts, a stupidly-run campaign, blaming organizations for being insufficiently polite to a candidate, blaming the other candidate for being more compelling to voters ... ech. If that's feminism, that's a movement neither needs nor wants me. But lordy, I hope I'm wrong about that.

Comments

[emily]

I've watched this issue with some interest, too, though I never picked between the two candidates. I do remember Feministing had a lot of discussion about feminism, identity politics, and how voting for Obama isn't an un-feminist thing to do. Quite a bit of discussion on Super Tuesday here: http://feministing.com/archives/008540.html

[enjil]

Lisa! You know that's not what feminism is. Are you seriously thinking about distancing yourself from the label, or hating how easy it is for any group, including women, to blame women for their plight?

[Polly]

I feel like whenever someone is saying, "Vote for me, I'm a ____" that's just an admission that there is absolutely no other reason to vote for them. "Vote for me, I'm competent" or "Vote for me, I'm sane" appeals to me a lot more. (Even "Vote for me, I share your values" doesn't always sell me, because what good is someone who is my ideological soul-mate if they can't actually get anything done?)

I voted for Clinton as a senator, but her gender had literally nothing to do with my decision. Early on, I supported her over Obama in part because I felt like a lot of the Obama supporters were trying to Make a Statement to the World as opposed to electing someone on merit. But at this point, I'm glad Obama is taking the nomination because Clinton has basically positioned herself as the candidate of angry white people, and there is nothing more sickening to me than a Democrat who is willing to do that. (Seriously. What a nice thank-you to the African-American community that supported her husband through thick and thin.)

[Lisa S.]

Lisa! You know that's not what feminism is. Are you seriously thinking about distancing yourself from the label, or hating how easy it is for any group, including women, to blame women for their plight?

A little from column A, a little from column B. I have really been revolted by how so many self-identified feminists and women's advocates have made voting for Clinton a litmus test for feminism; I want nothing to do with that. But you also nailed the blame factor too. I don't like that women are blamed for not rallying behind another woman, as opposed to looking at men and asking, "What about this candidate could you not swallow?" I don't like that there's still some expectation of monolithic gender identity; men don't have that because they're not reduced to their lowest common biological denominator. I find it insulting that people who are allegedly pro-woman DO have no problems assuming that female gender = monolithic idea of "what's good for women," because to me that's as dismissive as bigots who like to make sweeping generalizations based on gender or race or religion.

Maybe it's a generational thing. I really dislike what I've seen coming from Geraldine Ferraro and Robin Morgan and all the "second wave" women who still seem to operate on the premise that all women identify first as female and second as Catholic/conservative/liberal/Chinese/Latina/Lutheran/a scientist/an economist/a teacher/a lesbian/whatever. I think that view does feminism NO favors by ignoring the very real and disparate factors that lots of people grapple with in tandem with their gender baggage, such as class privilege or sexuality or ethnic identity or occupational passion.

[Jacquie F]

Wow, Lisa. You have perfectly articulated exactly how I feel about this whole Clinton thing. It's pretty to easy feeling like a bad feminist in this whole political awfulness. Thanks for being a voice of reason!

[Jane]

Right there with you. I was under the delusion until recently that the feminist and *smart* thing to do was to support the candidate that you felt was best for the job. Not the black candidate or the woman candidate or the old white guy candidate, the person that you actually thought could make this country a better place.

Of course, I now see the error of my ways. I can only be a real feminist if I blindly vote for the individual who shares the same genitalia as I do. Regardless of her policies, her track record, or that nagging feeling that I have in the back of my mind that she's riding the coattails of her husband, I must vote for her because she's a her.

The problem is that the old guard feminists are still hung up on the notion of sisterhood. When the power distribution is equal, when we all, black, white, man, woman, whatever, have an equal part in the game there is no brotherhood, no sisterhood. You don't have to side with your peeps to cover yourself, you can actually vote for the individual that best represent your interests. And hasn't that always been the goal of civil rights and feminism. To have the ability to vote, act and live like a white man? To selfishly protect what you want to protect or to give selflessly because you can? It be so secure in your power that it doesn't matter that someone is not from the same group as you, because you know that they will support your view because your view is the dominant view.

Thanks for posting this.

[enjil]

A large swathe of men have been able to vote using identity politics for a long time. With Clinton becoming a presidential contender, a large group of white, upper-middle class, heterosexual, mothers, well-educated, second-wave-feminist women are able to do so for the first time. (Of course, there are reasons to vote for her that have nothing to do with identity politics, and even people who vote for her because they think of her as being "one of them" do not necessarily resemble her in any visible way.)

I'm not convinced that identity politics is an awful way to determine presidential ability - the oft-lauded tool of voting records has always seemed reductionist to me, and speeches and campaigns are so carefully crafted. Identity politics can be, I think, a useful shortcut for some people in terms of finding common ground with candidates. The problem I have is when people insist that this is the best way, or the only way, to determine candidacy; the most grievous argument is the reductionist one, where women should all vote in a bloc, and all the commenters here have covered that pretty soundly. It's obviously time to move beyond the second wave.

This is easy enough for me to say - I'm not in a position where identity politics plays a role for me in this primary, as I can't even decide who demographically I identify more with between Obama and Clinton.

These don't seem like reasons to abandon feminism, though.

[Maria]

If I ever win the lottery I am going to hire skywriters to blanket the sky in this country with the message that women being mean or dismissive to other women is a SYMPTOM of sexism, not a reason to claim it doesn't exist.

Misogyny isn't limited to men. You are spot on about reducing women to their biology, and that it doesn't happen to men. Our society is so steeped in the idea that maleness is the baseline to measure deviation from that we are often blind to the sexism we are perpetuating.

[Julie]

Wow, I'm glad someone said that. I've been reading a lot of essays and op-eds from writers who seem to think that I should vote for Clinton because she's a woman, and that I'm a traitor to my gender if I don't. My feelings are exactly what you said: Saying I have to vote for someone *because* she's female, means that it's OK for a guy to vote against her for the same reason. It's also insulting to say that any of us should or do vote on that issue alone.

[TA]

I didn't read "women should vote for Clinton because she's a woman" out of ANY of those articles. On the other hand, I've read a whole lot of your message: women who DID or DO support Clinton should fall in line in the end.

Because otherwise we're mad, suicidal, ignoring our own interests. (Irrational woman, yet another sexist stereotype). Listen, it's not for anyone else to tell me what my interests are. Roe is important, but Roe is already weak and the privacy reasoning behind it was never very good, honestly. The patient could die despite our best efforts.

It's blackmail, pure and simple. If I give in to that, how am I going to argue later that I deserve better? I'm taking the long view here.

Obama can earn my vote the same way Clinton did: by showing competence, demonstrating an understanding of complex systems, and evincing a commitment to sex equality. It should not be that hard for him, and if he falls in line, then so will I.

[Lisa S.]

I've read a whole lot of your message: women who DID or DO support Clinton should fall in line in the end.

I don't know where I've sent that message. Perhaps you're reading it in my pointing out that whomever the next president is will be appointing many justices to the Supreme Court. However, I'm not concerned about that solely because of Roe V. Wade -- I'm concerned owing to the pro-corporate, neo-puritan bent of the Chief Justice and how that affects everything from free expression to federal industry regulations to environmental concerns. I simply don't think a massively conservative court is in any of America's best interests. It's not always about Roe.