Our daughters' daughters will adore us

Today's reading brings not one, but two articles examining how Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy has forced younger women to confront the strains of sexism still evident in American society. Rebecca Traister wrote "Hey, Obama Boys, Back Off Already!" for Salon, and Amanda Fortini wrote "The Fourth Wave" for New York.

The starting premise for both pieces: Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is the needle that's lanced the suppurating boil of sexism in America. And now women are shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that plenty of people think that the ladyfolk aren't really capable of doing anything more than thinking about childcare and checking their horoscopes online.

Then you can ladle on a few more arguments. Did you know that apparently women in their 20s, 30s and 40s are feeling intense "peer pressure" to vote for Barack Obama?  That's there's an oppressive atmosphere of Obama-fascism? According to Fortini's "anecdotal research" (her words, not mine), it's true. Whatever will these poor beleaguered women do when they get to the voting booth? (Except, you know, go vote in complete confidentiality as is the right of all Americans, then tell everyone that their vote is their own private business. Or is that crazy talk?)

But wait -- there's more.

Both pieces flog the argument that we who weren't around for the second wave of feminism are insufficiently grateful to our elders.

Old-guard feminists, for their part, seem not yet aware—or prepared to believe—that the younger generation is coming around. “Young women take a lot of things for granted,” Geraldine Ferraro told me. “We sometimes joke, ‘If you don’t get it, give it all back.’ We don’t want to say, ‘Look how bad it was.’ But they don’t know their workplaces are better because of loudmouths like me who said, ‘This is not how society should be run.’ ”

-- "The Fourth Wave"

According to the media script, these cool young customers have embodied their elders' worst nightmare of a generation that takes feminism's challenger faster than you can say "I've got a crush on Obama." These young women are way over feminism, we're told, and perceive gender bias to be an antiquated notion. They are embarrassed and annoyed by the public entreaties of warhorses like Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan. Pressure from their forebears only serves to alienate them from the second wave and drive them further into the disheveled embrace of the "Yes We Can!" dude down the block.

There is truth to this exaggerated electoral tableau. Young people are voting for Obama; Clinton is a troubling candidate for many women and men; and there is a sense that younger women feel more distant from second-wave feminist leaders than ever before.

-- "Hey, Obama boys ..."

Perhaps this makes me just another ingrate but I would have thought that the point to fighting for equal rights would be for those rights to be granted. Would not the moral victory be satisfying on its own? Do you have to have someone singing in grateful chorus, "Well done, sister suffragette"?

Both pieces put a bad taste in my mouth, in part because both pieces relied really heavily on anecdotal interviews with people like them -- as Traister said, "well-educated and professional, a culturally and politically elite demographic" -- to talk about how this election is shaping up for all women all over. And another reason these pieces put a bad taste in my mouth: because it's another case of women writing about sexism, to women reading about sexism. Take it to the dudes, I say. Start by asking them, "how has this election affected your attitudes toward gender?" Subject their attitudes to the same scrutiny.

Last time I checked, there were at least two different genders running around. Sexism isn't an affliction that's restricted to one. Enough of what the elite ladyfolk think. Let's broaden the scope.

Comments

[Siobhan]

You know what's weird? Anecdotally, I don't know one single woman in my family or even extended social group (in real life) who has voted for Clinton. Everyone I know has voted for Obama. And these are not antifeminist shrinking violets, I will tell you that right now.

I mean, granted, they're "young" (not really, they're all like, 40, but are trying very hard to stay in the scene), so maybe that's it, but I can tell you for a fact that I've never felt closer to the second wave as I have over the last couple of years, and I am surprised at this fundamental disconnect between traditional second-wave attitudes versus what I think the real point is.

I guess that's the point, right? You start out as a third-wave, realize you're full of shit, visit the second-wave, then figure out they're a bunch of whitecentric elitist bourgeois assholes and try to muddle something out for yourself.

[Maria]

THANK YOU!

[Kate the M]

"Last time I checked, there were at least two different genders running around. Sexism isn't an affliction that's restricted to one. Enough of what the elite ladyfolk think. Let's broaden the scope."

Totally agree. A) there's nothing wrong with keeping my voting preferences to myself, and B) I'd rather vote for the candidate whom (or who?) I feel is the best person for the job, regardless of his or her gender, race, creed, browser preferences, etc.

[Polly]

I think if Obama was running as this really anti-woman candidate, these folks might have a point, but does anyone really think that his agenda here is to roll back decades of progress? Honestly, the more the Clinton camp tries to play up the "He doesn't REALLY represent YOU" theme (not if you're working class, not if you're a woman, not if you're--gee, is there some other demographic keyword that starts with a "w" out there?), the more I find myself rooting for Obama.

[marion]

The thing is that Hillary isn't struggling because Obama has cast a spell over voters or is running on a plank of Keeping All Women Down. She's struggling because she's not that great a candidate. Note: I didn't say she's struggling because of her *views.* That's not what I'm talking about. There are plenty of bright people out there with good ideas that would make TERRIBLE candidates, because being a good candidate has to do with how you assess what the voters are looking for and how you can fit that with your deeply held views. That doesn't mean that you "pander to the voters," but it does mean that you at least appear to believe that what they think matters, and that presenting yourself in a coherent, engaging manner is key.

Hillary, unfortunately, is saddled with all of the considerable Clinton baggage but with little or none of Bill's political skill. Bill Clinton was a GREAT candidate. Hillary isn't. I think what you're seeing now is, more or less, the divide between the Democrats who really, truly fell in love with the Clintons and those who supported the Clintons out of ideological loyalty/a belief that they were at least the better choice/etc. during Bill's presidency. In some weird way, Hillary as a Presidential candidate seems to amplify the psychological and emotional upheaval of the Clinton presidency, whereas Bill Clinton could defuse that, or at least tamp it down, by just appearing in public.

And no, I don't think this is a gender thing. There have been plenty of terrible male candidates. That having been said, I do think that quite a few women are getting (not unjustifiably) ornery at the idea that they MUST vote for Hillary just because she's got two X chromosomes, and that orneriness is not helping Hillary's campaign. Pieces like the ones mentioned above only accelerate that process. If Hillary's fans REALLY want her to be doing better, they should be giving her advice on her candidacy, not telling voters how stupid they are for not voting the One True Way.

And maybe, just maybe, JUST MAYBE some of those young female voters think that having the first woman president be AWFUL in the job would work AGAINST the progress of women in the end. That would, of course, be unfair - but you KNOW that it would happen. I issue no verdict on whether Hillary would be a terrible president, but I think some voters are already making their opinions on that subject known through their primary ballots.

(I actually think that Obama has non-insignificant flaws as a candidate as well...but at least the guy seems warm and engaged, AND he doesn't ever give the impression that he finds himself entitled to the Presidency. And he's able to be funny. Which is good, because McCain is also able to be funny. Hillary has an issue with being genuinely funny. Fair or not, candidates who can't be genuinely funny even a bit tend to lose debates. Occasionally you have races such as 1988's, in which you have two non-funny candidates, but those have been relatively rare lately. And yes, despite what Christopher Hitchens may say, women certainly can be funny - Hillary just isn't one of those women. Nor am I, but I'm not running for President...)

[verucaamish]

Right on Polly! Can we look at POLICYWISE who would be the better candidate for feminists? Because I can see that Hillary Clinton has hardly been a standardbearer for the feminist cause. She's really ape a lot of right wing talking points about who's a "real" American (white male, rural) and who's not (minority, urban). I also hate her talk about making abortion rare as if it's some horrible affliction. It's a medical procedure. Let's stop talking about who these candidates are but whether they can effectively push for a progressive FEMINIST agenda.

[enjil]

The differences between second- and third-wave feminism encompass a whole lot of race/class/sexuality stuff that the second-wave never really addressed. But what I really wanted to say is, Well done, sister suffragettes!

[Shotrock]

Both pieces put a bad taste in my mouth, in part because both pieces relied really heavily on anecdotal interviews with people like them -- as Traister said, "well-educated and professional, a culturally and politically elite demographic" -- to talk about how this election is shaping up for all women all over.

Oh, God, YES. As Fortini noted in NYMag: "Do you keep your name, or take your husband’s? Do you put your career aside for his—at least for a time?"

Of course. All those single moms working as truck-stop waitresses? When they think of their socio-economic lot in life, those two questions are at the top of the frigging list, I'm sure.

And you know what? I'm tired of the doublespeak attitude of Second Wavers, of which Ferraro's remark is a perfect example: We're supposed to believe that nothing has really changed with regard to sexism, and at the same time believe that we're all tons better off because of their activism.

What I'd really like to hear is: "Equality is a journey. Our efforts got us this far along, but there's still aways to go. And since you have so many more opportunities than we did, you have the power to make sure it doesn't stop and stagnate here."

What I hear instead is: "Sexism is all-pervasive and effects every aspect of your life 24/7. Except that you'll never have to deal with half the bullshit I had to, and you'll have it twice as good as I did. Which really ticks me off, by the way."

[mindy]

I don't have an issue with Obama, Hillary, or any of the various waves of feminism, but I'm ticked with *you* for "Sister Suffragette" now being stuck in my head. :)

[Lisa S.]

Mindy -- Ha! I'd apologize, but I dig that song.

To be honest, my first exposure to feminism of any kind was via Mary Poppins and Mrs. Banks. And while I get NOW that Mrs. Banks was supposed to illustrate the selfishness of women who neglected their children's well-being in the name of tending to societal ills, when I was a kid, I was like, "Wait -- I can right wrongs and someone else deals with the tedium of housework? What is this movement called? Where do I sign up?"

[Kate the M]

"To be honest, my first exposure to feminism of any kind was via Mary Poppins and Mrs. Banks. And while I get NOW that Mrs. Banks was supposed to illustrate the selfishness of women who neglected their children's well-being in the name of tending to societal ills, when I was a kid, I was like, 'Wait -- I can right wrongs and someone else deals with the tedium of housework? What is this movement called? Where do I sign up?'"

Wait, you mean Mrs. Banks was a cinemized* version of Bleak House's Mrs. Pardiggle and Mrs. Jellybly?! I never knew that!!!

*"cinemized" is too a word. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Lisa S.]

The first time I ran across Mrs. Jellyby, I was like, "Mrs. Banks!"

Interestingly enough, the Mrs. Banks of the Mary Poppins movies is nothing like the one in the books -- the one in the books is merely overwhelmed by trying to run an upper-middle-class British victorian household and raise four children. The movie one was tweaked especially for the cinema.

[TA]

Yes, the point of fighting for equal rights is to get them. What's frustrating is when women who do NOT have equality perceive (or pretend) that they do. It does seem more likely to happen now with younger women, but I think that's a function of WHERE feminism has succeeded.

Last night (in a Sex Equality Law class), one of my younger classmates pointed out that she didn't FEEL unequal in society. And I thought - well, that makes sense. Your setting up until now has been primarily educational, where great strides have been made. Title IX, and all.

But the rest of her life will be about work and family, in whatever forms those take. There are not nearly as many legal protections (nor are the protections in place nearly as strong) in those areas.

And I disagree with your assertion that sexism affects both sexes. The patriarchy hurts men too, yes. But sexism is an entire cultural, political, and legal regime designed to oppress ONE sex. It's not just personal attitudes; it's personal attitudes made institutional.