White Feminists and Michelle Obama

by Special Correspondent Nadra Kareem

Should white feminists be taken to task if they don’t defend Michelle Obama from the misogynistic attacks sure to continue coming her way as the presidential campaign unfolds? Not necessarily, say Corinne Douglas and Jacquelyn Gray, who wrote an editorial called the “Cost of Silence” at the Root.com.

In the article, Douglas and Gray argue that black women remained silent when Hillary Clinton suffered a litany of misogynistic attacks. Therefore, white women can’t be held accountable if they refuse to defend Michelle Obama from the evils of sexism. Douglas and Gray write:

“The misogynistic savaging of Hillary Clinton was one of the most inexcusable elements of the primary campaign, and the silence from black women in the face of those attacks, because they supported Obama, was, at least, a tactical mistake. It is entirely unacceptable to go along with unfair attacks against women simply because you disagree with the particular woman under attack.”

But here the authors make a number of assumptions. For one, not all black women supported Sen. Obama. High profile black women such as California Congresswoman Maxine Waters and author Maya Angelou supported Hillary Clinton. There were also black women, such as writer Rebecca Walker, who backed Sen. Obama while exposing the sexism targeted at Hillary Clinton. Walker, the goddaughter of feminist icon Gloria Steinem, even pointed out the ways in which Obama himself exhibited sexist behavior. Political commentator Donna Brazile is another example, as she was adamant about being a representative for both women and blacks during the primaries and did not publicly back either Clinton or Obama during that time. As for those black women who were not vocal about the sexism Sen. Clinton experienced, the assumption can’t be made that they did not speak out simply because she was Obama’s opponent.

If anything, black women did not come to Sen. Clinton’s aid because they were largely in defense mode during the primaries. Comments by Sen. Clinton, in which she seemingly downplayed Martin Luther King’s accomplishments by suggesting that his triumphs were dependent upon President Lyndon Johnson’s actions, put black women on the defensive. Her remarks that Barack Obama won primaries and caucuses in states that didn’t really matter put black women on the defensive because many of the states in question have high concentrations of African Americans. Then, there are the comments her husband made, comparing Obama to Rev. Jesse Jackson for seemingly no other reason than that they are both black, not to mention calling Obama’s success in the primaries the biggest “fairy tale” he’d ever seen. Adding to the tension was Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro’s suggestion that black men are somehow privileged in this country. On Ferraro, Douglas and Gray write, “African-American women are justifiably frustrated by white feminists’ failure to fully regard their experiences.”

This is an understatement. White feminists such as Ferraro, Gloria Steinem and Erica Jong not only failed to fully regard the black experience, they dismissed it. Suggesting that black males are privileged in a society in which they are likely to be imprisoned, hyper sexualized, die young and generally viewed as a threat is a dismissal. And black women, who are intimately acquainted with the challenges their sons, brothers and husbands face, considered such a dismissal to be another act of oppression. It wasn’t that black women felt that privileged white women couldn’t speak out against sexism. It was that, during the primaries, such white women seemed to be doing so at the expense of blacks.

Douglas and Gray feel, however, that if more black women had spoken up for Hillary Clinton, they might have forged “a stronger voice, a stronger coalition, in defense of Michelle.” This statement is also troublesome. Why in an article focused on feminism are there so many references to Michelle Obama needing someone to defend her, as if she is a helpless little girl rather than a grown ass woman? Michelle Obama doesn’t need a white patriarch, or, in this case, matriarch, to rescue her.

Equally troubling is when Douglas and Gray state, “Alienating aggrieved white feminists, may well hurt Barack Obama’s chances and, with it, a chance to improve the lives of all women.” If white female supporters of Clinton decide to vote for McCain, or not at all, instead of for Obama, I question if feminist is the right word to describe them. If such women can vote for a man who espouses policies completely contrary to feminism or risk allowing such a man to win the presidency, how can they truly be? Someone who is truly anti-sexist, or truly anti-racist, for that matter, would act out against sexism and racism whenever confronted by them, for Martin Luther King’s words still apply: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

To her credit, Michelle Obama seemed to be reaching out to feminists during her keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. She spoke of the cracks Hillary Clinton put in the glass ceiling with her historic run for the White House as well as about women receiving the right to vote. Speaking of both civil rights and gender rights, Michelle Obama said, “I stand here at the cross-currence of that dream.”

And that’s no easy place to be.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Lumping « Dolly Speaks on 29 Aug 2008 at 2:42 pm

    [...] http://www.racialicious.com/2008/08/27/white-feminists-and-michelle-obama/ [...]

  2. Women vs. Women on Sarah Palin at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 05 Sep 2008 at 9:25 am

    [...] had Nadra respond. In an even handed response, she notes: “It wasn’t that black women felt that privileged white women couldn’t speak [...]

  3. CRANKY « Fugitivus on 10 Sep 2008 at 12:01 pm

    [...] White Feminists and Michelle Obama [...]

  4. White Feminists & Michelle Obama | NewsOne on 21 Jan 2009 at 5:09 pm

    [...] Click here for more. TAGS: barack obama, black history, Black History Month, Celebrate 44, inauguration, michelle obama, United States Share and Enjoy: [...]

Comments

  1. ceecee wrote:

    let’s not forget how some white feminist bloggers were tearing Michelle Obama to pieces as well during the primaries.
    Saying she looked mannish and was an angry black woman.

  2. Ismone wrote:

    Fantastic piece. Whatever happened to calling out sexism because it is WRONG, instead of manufacturing some tit-for-tat bs?

  3. Versai wrote:

    Another reason that some (not all, of course) black women had issues with Hillary Clinton is because Bob “former head of BET” Johnson* was one of her ardent supporters. Basically, the idea is how much of a feminist can you really be if you count a man whose company became successful through videos/shows/etc that exploit black women. (Or that Clinton– is one of those feminist who only thinks of issues/concerns of white women.)

    Not that people should ignore misogynistic attacts against anyone . . . but it can make you feel ambivalent. Aka- How do I defend Hillary Clinton from misogynistic attacks when she is standing side by side with a man who has gotten rich from perpetuating horrible stereotypes about black women?

    *I, personally, don’t think Bob Johnson was/is the Devil incarnate.

  4. different Ali wrote:

    Even ignoring reality and assuming Douglas and Gray were right that no black women called out the sexism against Clinton, ismone’s right, why is it tit for tat?
    Just in my own family, there’s been plenty of times while growing up and even today where my mom tells me stuff that basically amounts to “you’re a woman and shouldn’t be doing that unwomanly thing” but I don’t hesitate to defend her against sexist attacks from my dad despite all of that. It’s not that hard.

  5. Lisa J wrote:

    Wow, when I saw this I saw RED. So these women who are supposedly feminist don’t want to fight sexism against another woman based on what an entire group of women allegedly did to not support their candidate? The mind reels. I am an Obama supporter but I had to think long and hard about whether or not to support Hillary. In the end, I came down on the side of Barak. I was angered by the sexism Hillary faced, but with the exception of Obama telling her she was “liked well enough” or whatever he said in a debate and his calling a reporter sweetie (which I also can see was sexist but still not a huge thing to me,) I didn’t see Barak as the force behind it. To me, the overwhelming majority of sexism dished out at Hillary was from white males (and ocassionaly females) in the mainstream media. I decided that his history making quest was more important to me as a black woman than hers was and I know full well that tons of people HATE Hillary and her husband so vehemently that I never really thought she could win. I think some of the Hillary hate was because she is a woman but a lot of it (which is also directed at her husband) is just a dislike of her as a person and her sometimes slippery tactics (Bill’s too). Guilt by association I guess. I still don’t know for sure if Barak can overcome the racism in this country (and initally I thought he was crazy-Iowa changed my mind) but I have hope.

    Anyway, I think there were plenty of women, the ones sited in this piece, and regular black women, who didn’t like the sexism thrown against Hillary but what did we not do that these white women did do? And until it became obvious that Barak was really a viable candidate didn’t Hillary have the majority of the black vote (male and female)? I mean it isn’t like the black women who support Barak decided not to support her solely because she was a woman or actively participated in sexist acts and comments against her (unlike her campaign and the racism that it engaged in and she engaged in herself to a lesser extent). Way to much blame has gone towards Barak and I think a lot of it has to do with plain old racism. The women who are cited in this piece are seriously partaking in some racism and their attitude underscores why so many African-Americans are wary of mainstream feminism.

    Oh and this piece was really well written. Thank you Nadra.

  6. dave wrote:

    @different Ali: good analogy.

  7. RJG wrote:

    I’m boggled that some Hillary supporters are swearing that they will vote McCain (who doesn’t have any views Hillary did, AFAIK), or not vote at all (the greatest act of foot stomping this election season).

    And that doesn’t even remotely enter the territory or why a feminist would want McCain in the white house in the first place. The dude says life begins at conception. About ten million red flags should have shot up at that point and alerted people they if they enjoy reproductive rights, the dude can’t get into office.

  8. different Ali wrote:

    @ RJG
    Personally, I believe the Hillary-supporters-who-will-now-vote-for-McCain are about as prevalent as unicorns and yeti.
    I think people (read: media) hear “I’m not going to vote for Obama” or “I’m unsure about voting for Obama” as “I’m voting for McCain.” The 2 are not necessarily equal.

  9. Veronica wrote:

    wow….fab piece. A far better piece than just pointing fingers at the white feminist community and saying, “Do this.” Brava.

  10. Dani wrote:

    This is terrific – especially the last two paragraphs. If a “feminist” votes for McCain, she really has no business calling herself a feminist. Hillary made that case last night and Michelle Obama is similarly, the optime of what has been fought for so virulently over the past 100 years.

  11. bfp wrote:

    You know, it’s amazing to me, absolutely amazing, how many white feminists tell all women of color that feminism can not ‘include’ a race analysis or in any way be connected to ‘racial politics’, so when those women *leave* feminism and join up with other groups, white women are suddenly shocked, shcoked I say, that they are in their feminist room all by themselves.

    What’s esp infuriating to me is that, yet again, black women and women of color feminists HAVE and ARE calling out sexism where they see it–and, yet again, the words and work of those women are completly invisible to the white women that are writing about them.

    How many times will the work of women of color be made invisible by white women in the name of feminism?

  12. bfp wrote:

    oh, hell, I just realized that the referenced post was written by women of color. my question stands, but I apologize for assuming that this particular article needs to answer it.

  13. Rita wrote:

    Should white feminists be taken to task if they don’t defend Michelle Obama from the misogynistic attacks sure to continue coming her way as the presidential campaign unfolds?

    Yes.

    It is the moral obligation of feminists of any color (or gender) to call out sexism against any woman of any color. Period.

  14. Alyssa wrote:

    The article states: “It is entirely unacceptable to go along with unfair attacks against women simply because you disagree with the particular woman under attack.”
    I compleatly agree. It is beond me how they can state this, then go on to say it’s okay to go along with unfair attacks against women who are black because they disagree with what those women did/ didn’t do.
    We need to stop arguing litke little children about who started it. The point should simply be white women should support WOC and WOC should support white women becasue all sexism is unacceptable. Period.

  15. Squidfly wrote:

    What really lies at the heart of this campaign is jealousy. McCain and Bill are jealous of Obama. White feminists are jealous of Michelle because she has a healthy relationship with her husband. The white feminist movement are conflicted over their support of Hillary who voted for the war and didn’t leave the man who has been a serial philanderer. Hilary may have placed 18 mil, cracks in the ceiling, but she also sold her soul to become President by not divorcing the man who cheated on her several times.
    So much of the anger leveled at the Obama’s is the bitterness and cynicism of (a) Barak not waiting his turn and (b) Michelle not feeling beholden to the old white feminist regime.
    White feminists seem to always conveniently forget that white women have benefited the most from Affirmative Action. Barak Obama ran a brilliant campaign, this is fact has been moved to bottom of the deck. Clearly the Hilary supporters fail to see the sexism displayed by McCain’s new Ad’s, using Hilary’s words against Obama, these Ad’s are racist and sexist; using the white woman to attack the Black man. The all white male media are doing everything they can to elect McCain, which they would have done to Hilary. It’s pretty clear that should Hilary have been the nominee, Obama supporters would’ve moved to her camp.
    Bill was Hilary’s undoing not Barak.

  16. Brad wrote:

    Wow. Fantastic post.

    As a progressive but flawed (and privileged) white male, my personal maturation with respect to race and gender continues to come in fits and starts – and I have struggled, in particular, to understand the perspective of black women. At the risk of essentializing, I’d like to say that this was a breakthrough quote for me:

    “White feminists [...] not only failed to fully regard the black experience, they dismissed it. Suggesting that black males are privileged in a society in which they are likely to be imprisoned, hyper sexualized, die young and generally viewed as a threat is a dismissal. And black women, who are intimately acquainted with the challenges their sons, brothers and husbands face, considered such a dismissal to be another act of oppression.”

    While I think I may actually disagree with your overall argument (comments #4 and #5 really speak to me), I thank you dearly for writing with such clarity and precision on such a complex topic… it was a very illuminating post.

  17. Brad wrote:

    Oops – as soon as I posted my first comment I realized that I had mis-attributed part of Douglas and Gray’s opinions to Nadra. So disregard my last paragraph – I don’t disagree at all!

    Thanks again for a great post.

  18. Bryan wrote:

    This is a real shame. After 8 years of a criminal adminstration, watching the democrats squabble over who offended whom just under-scores how far the left is from being a real force in american politics.

    That being said, white feminists have shown themselves to be white first and feminists second. Also, they seemed to be feminists second and democrats third.

    These divisions are what keep the right/corporatists in power.

  19. Mary wrote:

    I just want to say that I am an Obama supporter who DID try to call out the sexism I saw directed at Hillary Clinton. People like Mike Barnicle referring to her as “your first wife at a probate hearing”, other people referring to her as shrill, is absolutely sexist. So I find it flatly untrue, in addition to being insulting, that the Obama folks just “stood by” while Hillary was receiving sexist attacks.

    But I also find it insulting, as a woman, to peddle the idea that Hillary Clinton lost solely because of sexism. She ran a genuinely terrible campaign. She didn’t know what to do after Iowa, and she floundered. She let her surrogates, Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro among others, engage in shameless race-baiting. That cost her the primaries in North and South Carolina, among others.

    Barack Obama hasn’t run a perfect campaign either (and I’m still kind of shocked that Joe “Dunkin’ Donuts” Biden is on the ticket) but I do think for the most part he fought a fairer fight than Hillary Clinton. And he won.

  20. Will wrote:

    I think that during the same period black feminists were in defense mode from attacks from multiple directions (the “Its a Jungle out there” controversy etc) and it had become very clear that the mainstream feminist movement was essentially becoming the middle-class white women’s movement. There was also a pretty prominent feminist who wrote an article stating that feminism had no business addressing issues of race. And lets not even talk about Geraldine Ferraro. It seems that the mainstream white feminists movements (and this is just my opinion) seems to have a big racial blind spot and the whole Clinton vs Obama flap brought it to the fore.

    If there is a split I would say that mainstream white feminists share the burden of the blame. They essentially chose white privilege over feminism. I was following quite a few blogs over the time period and thats what is sounded like to me. To posit this same tit for tat stupidity just further weakens their case and if there are any feminists who would vote for McCain out of spite at some perceived slight then I seriously don’t see how they would consider themselves feminists.

    The sad thing is that there is historical precedence for this. The suffragist movement had elements of racism and some of Susan B Anthony’s writings were quite racist. However, the historical context for that was that the women’s movement had put its activities on hold to fight for abolition and they were devastated when the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendement restricted the right to vote to males only (though keep in mind Frederick Douglass was a passionate advocate of womens right). The white suffragists essentially were focusing their anger on the wrong people (blacks) rather than white males and the male power structure.

    Then, just as we are now, it seems that blacks (both men and women) are being pitted against mainstream white feminists in a zero sum game. Lets be clear, Hillary Clinton did face quite a few sexist attacks but she and her surrogates also seemed more than willing to use racial appeals, both subtle and not so subtle when the chips were down. It will be long before I am no longer bitter about the ‘hard working white Americans’ comment and that’s just one example. So the big question is, does white racial solidarity triumph feminism?

  21. PureGracefulTree wrote:

    I highly recommend anyone interested in this phenomenon to check out Tim Wise’s recent essay “Your Whiteness is Showing”, available on his website at http://www.timwise.org.

  22. Ailurophile wrote:

    What Mary at #19 said. I’m an Obama supporter and I was appalled at the sexism directed at Hillary Clinton. You don’t have to like someone or vote for them to say that mudslinging or “isms” are wrong.

    And I also agree that HRC did not run a good campaign. She’s also the voice of the establishment (as I see it). I’m for Obama because I’m sick of the Clintons, Carvilles, and all the same old same old. I want fresh faces and new ideas!

    As far as Michelle Obama is concerned, she’s worth 50 Cindy McCain stepford wives any day. I believe that no matter how one feels about Mrs. Obama on a personal level, feminists (and everyone else) shouldn’t tolerate racist attacks on her. W. Charisse Goodman pointed this out in regards to fat women: to regard one category of women as fair game for attack (fat women, black women, old women, etc.) ultimately drags down the status of all women.

  23. different Ali wrote:

    sorry to go off topic for a second but this is one of my pet peeves: “she also sold her soul … by not divorcing the man who cheated on her several times”. Come on, Squidfly. Not you or I or anyone else in here knows what the Clintons’ marriage is like or based on. Yeah, I probably would have divorced a cheating partner (assuming the cheating hadn’t been discussed and OKed before hand) and it seems like you would too in that situation. But that’s just you and me, and lots of other people wouldn’t even consider divorce. And you know what? NONE of our opinions mean jack or shit to what the Clintons decided to do in THEIR marriage.

    @Will, cosign.
    As one of those pesky white feminists myself I’m trying to do my part to reduce my own blind spots to the point of nonexistence. Thanks Racialicious for the (sometimes painful) learning experiences.

  24. Monie wrote:

    What Versai said; excpet I personally think Bob Johnson is the devil.

    Also it was a revealing moment when Hillary became upset at an MSNBC anchor for referencing Chelsea using the term “pimped” and yet Bob Johnson (embraced Clinton supporter) is one of the people responsible for adding that word to mainstream vocabulary.

    I guess it’s okay with Hillary to use the word in reference to Black women but not her precious Chelsea.

  25. queenofsheba wrote:

    @Ismone– . Whatever happened to calling out sexism because it is WRONG, instead of manufacturing some tit-for-tat bs?

    HEAR FRIKKIN HEAR! Every anti-sexist, no matter their race or sex, should work to expose and oppose misogyny and chauvinism no matter when it shows up. Keeping score about who defended whom is . . . is. . . unhelpful, to put it mildly.

  26. Meg wrote:

    “What really lies at the heart of this campaign is jealousy. McCain and Bill are jealous of Obama. White feminists are jealous of Michelle because she has a healthy relationship with her husband.”

    Those are some really interesting statements Squidfly and imho take away from your more salient (and probably easier to prove) point about the role that bitterness has played in this campaign.

  27. Celeste wrote:

    @ Will: I’m still salty too about the “hard working white Americans” thing, too. I don’t think I’ll ever forget that little gem. On the other hand if she won the nomination she would have had my vote because I vote on POLICY *period*
    What’s really frustrating is talking about this with my mother who can see how ridiculous some fo the Hilary supporters have been but at the same time says she would have voted for McCain if Obama had lost the nomination. According to her, Hilary makes he decisions purely for selfish reasons (I don’t agree) and on top of that thinks that Hillary voted for the war because of her political aspirations, not because Bush fooled her (and a whole bunch of other folks). I don’t agree with this at all. This kind of devotion to a person/personality and not policy is way too common among Obama and Clinton supporters.

  28. Celeste wrote:

    I think Bob Johnson’s the devil.

  29. Nadra wrote:

    Lisa J, I totally agree with you. Some of the vitriol that came Hillary Clinton’s way most definitely had to do with perceptions about she and Bill being corrupt and not about her being a woman. I wrote this piece Monday night, but I would add that, with her speech last night, Hillary Clinton seemed to be trying to reach out to black women by highlighting the accomplishments of Harriet Tubman. I would also add that the sexist attacks that have targeted Michelle Obama are racialized and, therefore, different from the types of attacks that Hillary received. No white woman would be referred to as a “baby mama” or have their physical appearance distorted in the racialized way Michelle’s was on the “New Yorker” cover. Lastly, because of Michelle’s looks and style, she has become a sex symbol to a degree. For example, there is a rap song (I don’t know the name) in which Michelle’s legs are praised. Hillary Clinton never received this type of attention. I, like many, have noticed Michelle’s great legs and don’t necessarily think it’s wrong to point them out, though it poses another issue for feminists to deal with that never emerged during Hillary’s campaign.

  30. merry wrote:

    Sometimes I’m really taken aback by the use of “white feminists” on this site, and others. It’s very totalizing and ignores the breadth of commentary that has been prevalent throughout the blogosphere from white women in support of Michelle and Barack Obama. It’s very clear to me that there are many, many white women who have been on board with the Obama campaign from the beginning, and who have also watched for sexist attacks on Michelle Obama from the beginning.

    If folks want to think women like Gloria Steinem epitomize what a white feminist is like, go ahead. But its a gross exaggeration and misses the diverse perspectives within the world of white women.

    Then there’s the whole question of using the word feminist itself. I don’t use it, but most certainly am one if pressed on the question. So is this use of the term “white feminists” specifically about a small cadre of prominent women who get a lot of attention from the mainstream media? If so, clarifying that would be good.

    As to the sexist attacks on Hillary, they were certainly prevalent throughout the primary. In fact, they’ve always been prevalent. Personal attacks on Hillary are almost a national past-time. If she is “HATED”…it’s because the right wing began attacking her from the very beginning because they don’t like what a strong woman looks like.

    I agree that the Clinton campaign failed miserably on the anti-racist front…and I hope this will be a topic that continues to get aired. But I can separate it, and even Hillary herself, from the gross misogyny that permeated the media regarding Clinton. If anything, she is a symbol of something very threatening to the misogynators (I like that word), and the evidence of that was in full bloom. It does deserve condemnation on all fronts.

  31. kmd wrote:

    “If white female supporters of Clinton decide to vote for McCain, or not at all, instead of for Obama, I question if feminist is the right word to describe them.”

    THIS.

    This this this this this.

    Did I mention … this?

    And can I say how grateful I am to read someone who is willing to continue to yank that word and history away from those who corrupt it rather than letting these … people define what “feminist” is?

    Thank you.

  32. Renee wrote:

    One of things that these white feminists fail to acknowledge is that this election meant that black women had to straddle two oppressions to make a decision. Gender and race play dual roles of stigmatization in the lives of WOC. Hedging your bets to see which “side” is truly going to address your needs was a good position to take. Lets be clear both black men and white women have a history of using black women when it is convenient for them and forgetting us when it is not. Black men and white women want it both ways…the ability to claim a unique oppression and then use a position of dominance in society to oppress.

  33. Black Canseco wrote:

    “it’s not over yet. It’s not even June… a lot can happen… RFK was assassinated in June.”
    —Hilary Clinton in May 2008.

    The one thing this election process has pushed me to do is to take feminism with a grain of salt, almost across the board.

    I can love, respect, admire, listen to, trust, dialogue with, learn from, teach, argue passionately prs/cons with women from all walks of life without having to associate with the legions of navel-gazing, myopic, arrogant, petty white women and only see/say “women” when refering to white women.

    these women—more often than not—call themselves feminists.

    For these women, there’s no talking to, and i’m totally thru with ‘em.

  34. Black Canseco wrote:

    And maybe HRC made this call herself, perhaps a memo was circulated that i didn’t get a copy of, but can somebody tell me exactly what year did Harriet Tubman get reduced to a mascot for privileged white women?

    maybe i missed that part of history class.

    also, can somebody explain to my grandmother what the 19th amendment did for black women, when they still couldn’t vote long after white women could (largely because white women lied to black women to get their support for the issue then used their vote to vote against civil rights and issues relevant to blacks included Jim Crow), yet we still talk about “women’s rights?

    maybe it’s just my testerone showing or my uppitiness blocking my view of things.

  35. Black Canseco wrote:

    I’m working on a piece about this–maybe it’ll get done by the end of the day, maybe not. but can someone particularly the women of Racialicious weigh in on this one:

    The use of the word “catharsis” as it relates to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the transfer of support to Obama’s.

    I’ve heard the phrase “they/we want a catharsis/cathartic moment”. “We want closure”.

    The “need for a catharsis” comes off, speaking as a black male, as a very soft, privileged white woman-ish, elists feminist Oprahfied sense of entitlement.

    It’s as if because you didn’t get your way, so now everyone must clear a path so that you can cope and be coddled like the poor little victim you want to be seen as. And if they don’t give you/your idea/champion, a stage to mourn and hug-it-out then they’re just a bunch of oppressive, insensitive a-holes who hate/marginalize women.

    I did an interview the other day and the host said he liked to measure situations like this from “a coinflip”: If Obama had lost under similar circumstances, would his largely black supporters been able to demand a “cathartic moment”. Would they have been able to demand that Clinton pay Obama’s debt. Would they have been able to demand consecutive prime-time speaking slots?
    Are any black candidates and their supporters who lose in primaries/elections allowed “catharsis”?

    any thought on the word, it’s use or parallel with white feminists?

  36. ms four wrote:

    This white feminist Obama supporter is pretty horrified by some of these Clinton supporters. My hackles started to rise when I read “white feminist,” but, honestly, some of my fellow white feminists are so awful it’s not wonder folks get sick of it and want to lump us all together.

    I actually think much of the criticism of Michelle Obama is both misogynistic and racist, and I’m not sure if there’s any advantage in trying to break it down.

    And man am I feeling tired of both Clintons. I hope we move on after tonight.

  37. A. wrote:

    See why I’m done with feminism?

    I’m more of a person who is much more fond of Womanism, or Black feminism, rather than this mockery of what feminism should be that has now, unfortunately, pretty much become the standard.

    Feminists? The MEDIA are the ones who consistently gave Hillary Clinton issues. Their problem lies not with Barack Obama. They don’t dislike Barack Obama because of patriarchy – they dislike him because he’s a black male – and some think “How dare a black male have more influence than us white women?” Barack, to my knowledge, hasn’t said anything that could be remotely construed as sexist towards Hillary. Hillary, meanwhile, not only made the now-infamous “Robert Kennedy Comments,” she also made the “I’m doing good with hard working Americans, White Americans” comment, and hasn’t denounced Geraldine Ferraro at all.

    Feminists? Where the fuck is their support for Cynthia McKinney? Why McCain over her? Why McCain, who has used the word “cunt” to describe his own wife, unapologetically uses the word “gook,” and is pretty much not for women’s rights at all? Are these feminists first and foremost, or just white women who are trying to deny their own innate prejudices and think that feminism is some sort of a book club to rant about how men have treated them?

    Feminists? Have they checked their fucking histories? Black women have dealt with both racism and sexism in regards to voting, while they’ve been able to vote since 1920. While they talk about the labor force, black women were the ones working in their houses, watching their kids while they went to hang out with their friends or play bingo or whatever the hell else. My grandmother was one of those women who had to work as a maid while her employer’s wife didn’t do shit with her time, even though she had more than ample time to watch her own kids. During suffrage protests, it was black women that were asked to march in the back of the line as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of white women. Online, white feminists continue to step on the toes of women of color without a second thought and a “we’re sorry you were offended” apology.

    But yet, we’re not supposed to take feminists to task when they fail us? Their history is rich with FAILURES in regards to black women, and even black people. This will only be one more. Some of us already know how genuine they tend to be in regards to sex AND race. Gloria Steinem said it perfectly.

  38. Mary wrote:

    The use of the word “catharsis” as it relates to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the transfer of support to Obama’s.

    I’ve heard the phrase “they/we want a catharsis/cathartic moment”. “We want closure”.

    The “need for a catharsis” comes off, speaking as a black male, as a very soft, privileged white woman-ish, elists feminist Oprahfied sense of entitlement.

    I can understand, on a basic level, the emotional desire for “catharsis.” I’m an Obama supporter- if he had lost I can’t deny I would feel bummed out. So I can’t hold it against the Hillary folks for feeling the same way. The feelings of people like my mom, who was genuinely moved by the possibility of seeing a female president in her lifetime, are real.

    HOWEVER…

    My mom’s over it. She’s no PUMA.

    And I feel the way it has been talked about, blown up, and beaten to death by the MSM does end up playing into sexist tropes about women being all emotional. Watching the coverage I think there is a real subtext of “women are so emotional, they can’t handle not getting what they want, so Obama has to keep them from crying and stomping off to vote for the other guy.” The media is only able to make a phenomenon of the PUMAs by relying on the familiar concept of the “hysterical woman.”

    This is not to disagree with your pointing out of the privilege involved – which I fully agree with, and I don’t think black people would have gotten the same – just adding another angle.

  39. Black Canseco wrote:

    msfour,

    there is an advantage to breaking down the attacks on Michelle because while there’s some overlap in the struggles of white women and black/hispanic, aisian, multiethnic women of color, the paradigms and constructs of femininity tend to discount the latter all together. in short, their are differences in the way white women vs non-white women and it plays out in many areas including the michelle obama attacks.

    if “women” truly meant ALL WOMEN, people would be outraged that Michelle Obama gets refered to as a “angry black woman” by the exact same people who embrace (even begrudgingly) Hilary Clinton as “a fighter”.

    if this were an across the board issue, people would’ve been put off by Hilary Clinton’s referal to her time in the white house and the governor’s mansion in Arkansas as if she held elected/appointed positions worthy of resume fodder. (Has any woman of color ever been allowed to count their marriage as work experience”?)

    I could on, but it’s blind spots like these that make the discussion necessary.

    it’s great that you acknowledge, on some level, a need to examine this, but the reason threads/topics like these continue to pop up is because far too many self-proclaimed feminists and “women” just refuse to consider the simple fact that “women” is bigger than white women and that it’s not their job/place to try to speak for all women at the expense of those capable of/deserving of their own voice.

  40. Renee wrote:

    @A McKinney is their fallback choice. Now that Clinton is out out of the race she is suddenly woman enough to count. They hypocrisy of this is beyond disgusting. her campaign is historic, not only is she a WOC but so is her running mate, but lets not talk about that white women are feeling entitled.

  41. Bryan wrote:

    “Feminists? Have they checked their fucking histories? Black women have dealt with both racism and sexism in regards to voting, while they’ve been able to vote since 1920. While they talk about the labor force, black women were the ones working in their houses, watching their kids while they went to hang out with their friends or play bingo or whatever the hell else. My grandmother was one of those women who had to work as a maid while her employer’s wife didn’t do shit with her time, even though she had more than ample time to watch her own kids. During suffrage protests, it was black women that were asked to march in the back of the line as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of white women. Online, white feminists continue to step on the toes of women of color without a second thought and a “we’re sorry you were offended” apology. ”

    Wow. Spot on!!! Both of my grandmothers spent the better part of their lives working in the house of “feminists.”

    A. I think you for encapsulating my feelings in your post.

  42. ms four wrote:

    Black Canseco, I heard a healthy amount of criticism of Hillary invoking her time as first lady as political experience… including, I believe, from white feminists on Slate.com.

    I actually agree with all of what you said, though–there is a value in seeing how women are oppressed as women, even as we acknowledge that women of color have a double burden.

  43. Alexandra wrote:

    All I have to say is thank you, thank you for this post.

  44. sly wrote:

    PUMAs this year should well remember that a new set of PUMAs in 4 years could well prevent another HRC attempt in 2012.

  45. FranSky wrote:

    Ugggh. Some folks will go to such lengths to justify their racism. As noted:

    -not all Black women supported Obama

    - consider that being a Black woman during the primaries meant defending themselves against sexism and racism?

    -can one call themselves truly feminist when putting the needs of white women before ALL women.

    *sigh*
    ~F

  46. Shauna wrote:

    @ceecee:

    Did someone really say Michelle Obama is mannish? WTF.

    I would really like to see that post/whatever. That’s just ridiculous. She wears a dress everytime I see her, has a very feminine physique and face, and wears her hair in a very feminine way. I mean what else can you do to avoid having people say you’re not female enough.

  47. merry wrote:

    Black Canseco,

    “if “women” truly meant ALL WOMEN, people would be outraged that Michelle Obama gets refered to as a “angry black woman” by the exact same people who embrace (even begrudgingly) Hilary Clinton as “a fighter”.”

    Hillary Clinton has spent at least the past 16 years ago withstanding assaults on the national stage due to her strength. It could be that these haters are now begrudgingly acknowledging her as “a fighter” because at a certain point you have to just give it to her. Michelle Obama and all other strong woman with an opinion are easy targets for the reactionaries.

    The fact that Michelle is black adds fuel to the reactionary fire, undoubtedly. And the Obamas, et al, are trying to mute their blackness on the national stage at the moment, if you ask me. Where is the civil rights fervor at this convention? It should be flying from the rafters, instead it only bubbles up to the surface here and there.

    “…if this were an across the board issue, people would’ve been put off by Hilary Clinton’s referal to her time in the white house and the governor’s mansion in Arkansas as if she held elected/appointed positions worthy of resume fodder. (Has any woman of color ever been allowed to count their marriage as work experience”?)”

    I think you overreach in making your points. Time and again I have seen Hillary attacked for referencing her history in the public sphere as qualifying experience. The fact is that NO woman gets to count their role as wife and mother as “work experience”–but they OUGHT to. It’s social reproduction, for starters, and it rarely if ever gets its due. Not to mention, women have found their route to power through their marriages throughout time due to the gendered economic structure you see throughout history, spanning every culture. I have no qualms with it. In the United States, the role of “first lady” (now thats a gross moniker) is most definitely one that thrusts that person into the public sphere. They can become a great hostess, or actually get something done. Its pretty arguable that Hillary got more than enough done in that role. If any wife of a president was ever more involved in policy than she was, please point that person out to me. I don’t begrudge her desire to run for office herself after that experience, or for pointing to her experience in the 90s as qualifying credentials.

  48. Black Canseco wrote:

    msfour,

    Don’t take this as nitpicking, but there’s something in your phrasing that reinforces my/others’ concern.

    you say, there is a value in seeing how women are oppressed as women,” it comes off as saying “women”=white women” like there’s “real women” and then there’s “the other women”.

    and “even as we acknowledge that women of color have a double burden.” comes off as some sort of “outreach” as if you’re doing women of color a favor in acknowledge their womanhood plus any unique struggles/perspectives the have related to ethnicity/culture.

    i’m not saying that’s how you meant it, but that how it comes across and more importantly, that how far too many so-called feminists actually mean it and articulate their views as such.

  49. Squidfly wrote:

    different Ali wrote:
    Come on, Squidfly. Not you or I or anyone else in here knows what the Clintons’ marriage is like or based on.

    The point I’m trying to make is this, the stakes have always been high for Hilary. As seen by that montage last night. She crossed over from Republican to Democrat. Senator for NY although she’s not from NY.
    She did sell her soul for the right to become President, by staying with Bill, after all it was her turn. This information isn’t new, it’s pretty common knowledge to most people, let’s not fool ourselves, this all about power. I’m not talking about the mechanics of their marriage. I admire her ambition, but when it’s wrapped as pure driven feminist representation, then I have a problem. She’s as Political as anyone else out there, I mean let’s get real. The Mark Penn attack lines that were used on Obama that focused on his “Un-Americaness” And the speeches we didn’t get to hear. When Samantha Power called her a “monster ” and had to quit, because it didn’t fit into the feminist narrative, Hilary didn’t step up and say a word to help out a “Sister” She wanted serious scholar out of the way.
    The most powerful moment of her speech was invoking Harriet Tubman and I really got Hilary. I’ve always liked her and admired her, but the sexism had been coming for the last twelve years. It’s so convenient to pin it on the Black Man and how absurd when you see Michelle Obama in action to even think that Obama’s a sexist.- We’re all a little sexist sometimes-Hilary’s campaign was run by white men, who were obviously using her for their own agenda, access to power.
    Every media critic and pundit talking asshole was watching Michelle Obama, hoping wishing she’d screw up, she didn’t of course. The Obama’s got it going on and it’s driving the white establishment crazy. They keep pounding out demanding to know what it is he means by “Change” But they know, they know exactly what it is he means.
    This election is about Power and Race.

  50. Witchsistah wrote:

    If anything, this campaign season has outed mainstream White feminism for what it is and always has been, an exclusive club for privileged, White women who want to co-rule with White men and have power over everyone else. That Douglas and Gray are now stomp-pouting over not getting their way and giving the finger to Black women in some sort of entitlement-wh**ed-out revenge is only par for the course. These women see WOC as their SERVANTS not their equals. We are there to sweat for THEIR right to be Miss Anne. And woe betide those of us who aren’t content with the role of White Woman’s Servant.

    And these are usually the folks who immediately pop off with “Two wrongs don’t make a right!” when Black folk are fantasizing about some sort of revenge or strategizing about legit retaliation in response to some racist act against us. WE are supposed to be good lil darkies and meekly accept whatever bullshit anti-Black racism comes to us. But White women are too good for such a fate. They get to retaliate. They get that second wrong. Or at least, they feel perfectly entitled to petty, unearned revenge.

    And many folk here have noticed how they keep from engaging the folk who did attack Hillary, the White male media and kept attacking Black people. Well, they’re trying to get in good with White men so they’re not going to muss them up too bad. Meanwhile, Black folk are fair game. Who’s going to come to our aid and defense? Hell, most of us won’t even be bothered.

    Oh, and to the White women here who responded with a “Not me! I’m not like that! We’re not all like that!” if they weren’t talking about you, then don’t worry about it. You know what you do/did and what you’re about. No need to trumpet your innocence all over the place.

    Plus, we do not have the time nor the energy to hold your hand, wipe your brown and reassure you that we think you’re one of the Good White Folk. Hell, we didn’t get that consideration from your fellow White women, Douglas and Gray, up there even though Black women have spoken, written, blogged about the sexist treatment Hillary has gotten from the media since day one of her campaign. Why don’t you go and talk to THEM instead of coming here and lecturing us on how “good” you are!

  51. evita wrote:

    I’m so sick of white women defining what feminism is. I found much of what Hillary did during the campaign is use sexism to her own advantage. Hillary can say “Girl Power” and and still be called a feminist? Are oyu kidding me? What the heck would have happened to Barrack if he said Black Power? Right they would have come for him with the dogs…

    White feminists are not and will not support Michelle Obama because she is a Black woman. Black women have never fully sided with the white feminist movement because of their inability to see how differently Black women are treated. So white feminists are not going to be pissed off that Michelle is portrayed with an afro and called militant… just as long as she is not portrayed baking cookies!

    We will win this election without their help. Yay for Michelle for showing power and not kissing their asses. NOW can kiss my Puerto Rican ass. I can be a feminist but I will spend my energy defending ourselves since movement has nothing to do with us.

  52. Black Canseco wrote:

    “The fact is that NO woman gets to count their role as wife and mother as “work experience”–but they OUGHT to.”

    Merry, I can’t let that falsehood slide…

    No person should count their position as a spouse as work experience. By your logic, Laura Bush is qualified to run for president and can claim “8 years in the white house”.

    The whole point of our government, in theory at least–is that our representatives are elected by the people or appointed by those we elect. I don’t want your wife, your brother, your cousin, or your buddy in just because they’re connected to you.

    Hilary conflated her marriage as work experience at every turn and there were exponentially more supporters of this than there were critics of it.She further shored up the BS tactic by saying all Obama had was “a speech he made in 2002″.

    She didn’t pull this when Biden, Kucinich, Richardson were still in the race because they held elected posts for almost as long as she’d been married.

    She could’ve ran for office in the 70s, 80s, 90s but chose not to.

    This is the type of glaring double standard that wouldn’t be afforded any woman of color or any male of any color.

  53. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @BC – I think Merry has a point. Not necessarily that being married to someone with a job makes you qualified to do it, but that you are privy to somethings as a spouse that can be helpful when entering that career path.

    (Obviously, I did not agree with her using that defense while shitting on Obama’s experience, but I am looking at it from a different angle.)

    Often times, the spouses of successful people do actually make that claim of business support – it comes part and parcel to being married to that kind of spouse. You learn about their business, offer them council, that kind of thing. Often times, you are setting aside what *you* could have accomplished to provide back up to that spouse.

    So, maybe I am looking at it from a different angle, because that is a choice high achieving, successful women find themselves having to face, but I am not mad at HRC for talking about what she saw/witnessed/participated in for those 8 years as part of her experience.

  54. GeeLennox wrote:

    Witchsistah. I think I love you.
    You hit the nail on the head.

  55. Black Canseco wrote:

    Latoya,

    If Hilary had put it the way you said it, i think those who criticized it would’ve happily agreed. Obviously she saw things and was privvy to conversations that that few if any others were in that stretch. but that’s different from spewing falsehoods like “I was instrumental in the Northern Ireland Peace treaty”, “i got shot at in Kosovo”, etc. She was clearly conflating her position as a 1st lady with that of a policy advisor.

    My mom can’t call herself a financial expert because my dad was a banker, can she? that’s all i’m saying.

    i don’t question relevant credentials until you show yourself incompetent–or until it becomes clear that they’re not wholly yours.

  56. merry wrote:

    The interesting thing about politics and the policy arena is that you don’t have to have a Phd to be there. This is very evident in local politics. Some people have a knack for it.

    Hillary clearly made one statement after another during her campaign that were exaggerations, outright falsehoods, not to mention she compromised her moral integrity numerous times by letting people like Steinem slide, eventually being sucked down into that same muck herself as she got more desperate.

    But to the overarching claim of experience deriving from her role in the 1990s, I have no problem with it. Not because she claimed it this year but because I watched it then. I didn’t always agree with Hillary, in fact I very much disagreed with her at times. But, Bill himself campaigned on a “2 for 1″ platform and as soon as he took office in 1992 he put her right into a policy position. And she continued to be highly engaged in policy throughout his tenure–she’s widely credited with the SCHIP legislation: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/giving_hillary_credit_for_schip.html

    The SCHIP legislation is probably the most prominent of what she did–I think its emblematic of a piecemeal approach she has taken on health care since the failure of the comprehensive bill she tried to put together in the beginning.

    The problem with these kinds of debates is that one may get perceived as being an advocate or supporter of a particular person. In fact, I voted for Obama and am hopeful he will usher in a new day, as much as any POTUS can be expected to in a white capitalist patriarchy. But I also am not a Hillary hater, mainly because all those at that level are suspect to me in the first place, but additionally because I cringed right along with a lot of other women in the 90s as she was attacked for being, yes, a strong woman. I didn’t like the constant attacks on her femininity, as though all women have to have certain figures or demeanors to be considered worthwhile, and as if those kind of considerations outweigh her clear intellect and commitment to her work.

    I am probably digressing at this point. Back to being a wife and spouse, these are very much roles through which all kinds of integral work is done in our society. It’s private, unpaid work…but we could put all kinds of different labels on it. Mentor, teacher, advisor, confidante…leadership development practitioner, community organizer. Not to mention, breadwinner on the side.

    Hillary is obviously at the top of the political tree and always has been…but at all levels, the leap from the role of supportive spouse into elected office isn’t really as big of a stretch as you might think. I wish more women would run, instead of deferring to their husbands, starting at the school board level.

  57. trish wrote:

    Hillary’s real enemy was the man at her side. He did more to savage her before and after her run for the candidacy than anything else. Barak knows how to treat women as so evidenced by his love for his wife and daughters. As for white feminists refusal to support Michelle Obama, you’re so transparent, no pun intended. As black women in America knows we have come along way on our own merit, so you can keep your vaunted support.

  58. NancyP wrote:

    1. During the primary I was more involved watching the candidates than the spouses – until Bill put in his oar. My main notice of MO was – accomplished, good-looking, prudent – a political asset. I don’t watch much TV and don’t have cable, so I found out about Michelle -bashing relatively late, just before the stupid magazine cover (my first thought was, she wouldn’t be caught dead wearing that outfit and especially those shoes…). My thoughts on the bashing were “she can take care of herself and still have time for lunch”. Now I suppose she will be targeted more and I will be noticing more .
    2. I am still more interested in defending the candidate than his wife.
    3. I don’t plan on picking on Cindy McCain. I may not think much of her, but my bone is with her husband.
    4. PUMAs are highly over-rated. The majority of feminist sore losers will recover their senses, or did so earlier.

  59. A. wrote:

    @Witchsistah –

    THIS. SO MUCH THIS. THIS A MILLION TIMES OVER.

  60. NancyP wrote:

    I do think there is a generational thing going on with the “white feminists blind to everything except HRC”. If a white woman wasn’t a top level activist or established in a career by about 1975, the likelihood is good that she doesn’t have that gut level fear that HRC was the Only Chance Ever to get a woman in the Presidency. I have to say that I had a hard time deciding between HRC and Obama early on (Super Tuesday state), eventually punched chad for O., but reasoned that either would be adequate compared with the alternative. White feminists under 55 don’t seem quite as tied up with the last-chance bit, and I encountered many white feminist O. supporters in the 40 to 60 year age bracket. Gerry Ferraro is so yesterday and so not the spokeswoman for white feminists not Medicare-eligible.

    I think one thing has been underdiscussed here – the media role in encouraging and inflating division by giving air time to bad behavior. The broadcast media are NOT LIBERAL. They are interested in mass media consolidation, and care greatly which party gets in power, since the FCC Democratic members have consistently attempted to publicize and obstruct Republican efforts to increase the maximum allowable market share of media in any given market (ie, own 50% instead of 35% of all local broadcast radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, etc.). Reporters are made to understand that certain topics just aren’t talked about – media consolidation being at the top of the list.

  61. Black Canseco wrote:

    not to belabor the point, but i think it’s stunning how the whole SCHIP went down… it never crossed anyone’s mind that her biggest stumbling block was people who got hired/appointed to their posts saying, “what gives you the right to tell me how to do my job? You don’t work here.”

    If my CEO’s wife tells me how to work, i’m gonna have a problem with that. Why? She doesn’t work here.

    That an unelected, unappointed relative of a political figure can be given the greenlight to set policy is so beyond what government is supposed to be about. It’s also against the laws set forth in our government.

    We had that going on Chicago with Mayor Daley (Jr. and Sr. and their relatives trying to set local policy) over the years and people threw fits.

    I think this just sets a nasty, nasty precedent. Because HRC could do it, then on what grounds do we complain should Cindy McCain do the same? Or the wife of some other official?

    Again, it’s not about whether or not being a wife is important, noble, worthy of compensation, it’s about does being a wife entitle you to opportunities that anyone else would have to interview/be vetted for.

    this is beyond a bad idea. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

    If Michelle Obama wants to run for office, god bless her. but i don’t want her setting policy just because she knows Barack. And giving HRC a pass on this, just opens the door to having it duplicated by somebody you really won’t like duping it.

  62. Whitney wrote:

    Whatever happened to women sticking together and sticking up for one another?

    And when criticism is deserved, they should be criticized for their policies or views or what have you, not by their looks or who they are married to.

  63. Witchsistah wrote:

    I agree with everyone who says that we do not need the support of the Hillary feminists. They want to vote for McCain, let ‘em. But they better not DARE utter word one of complaint if he gets elected and starts ripping away their privileges and rights (nope, the big, rich, White dude will not protect YOU either). And if they decide to sit this whole shebang out, then they got NOTHING to say about anything on the national level for the next four years. Let ‘em keep their forked-toungue yaps SHUT for a change. The rest of us will enjoy being able to discuss OUR issues without their derailing, diminishing or steering the discussion to focus on THEM all the time!

    Yeah, we got this without the Hillaries’ help so let ‘em keep their ol’ funky votes. I love how they think the world somehow cannot turn without THEM in it!

  64. Kara S. wrote:

    “It is entirely unacceptable to go along with unfair attacks against women simply because you disagree with the particular woman under attack.”

    This is the only statement I really agree with. That’s not saying that I believe black women were ignoring sexist attack made on Hillary. But black women and feminism haven’t always been the best of friends and some of these feminist sites were just as hard on Michelle as the media was on Hillary. That is one of the reasons I don’t support feminism as a movement: they are so quick to dismiss the black experience, or even the minority experience. It’s a very Eurocentric movement.

  65. Kara S. wrote:

    Just so you know, Latoya, a message saying I’m commenting too quickly popped up on my first comment on this thread. I had to wait a couple of minutes to post. Don’t know if that’s been happening to anyone else.

    [Mod Note - Sorry - Carmen and tech are working on it. - LDP]

  66. merry wrote:

    Black Canseco,

    I’d suggest that government should not be equated with corporations. Policy really isn’t so cut and dried as “this is my job–let me do it.” It requires a lot of give and take between elected officials, bureaucrats, various interest groups and the public. To get something passed often takes multiple iterations involving a lot of compromise. To suggest that SCHIP resulted from some top down autocratic directives from Hillary Clinton is a little off-base, imho.

    Frankly, good policy often derives from years of advocacy work coming out of the non-profit, civic sphere, which includes droves of people just like Hillary back in the day. I think its good when elected officials direct their managers, staff to be more inclusive in how policy gets crafted. To me, thats the way government ought to be. As to unelected, unappointed…Hillary may have been unelected, but she was obviously appointed. As are 1000s of others in the federal government, and 100s upon 100s at the state/local level…to all kinds of task forces and other bodies. Mostly all volunteer based the further down you get to the local landscape. Hillary was clearly involved in the work she engaged in due to advocacy work going way back, as an activist, an attorney, and yes, as Bill Clinton’s wife. I don’t think anyone she worked with would dispute that she brought expertise to the work she did either.

  67. Sarah wrote:

    In studying history, one of the things which has interested me most has been the ways in which women’s political power has often been most obviously manifested by the ways in which they influence the men around them, notably husbands and sons. In most cases, the woman in question does have to have a fair amount of skin and economic privilege to get there, yes, but in many ways it was the only way women got to reach certain levers of power. And while it’s true that many First Ladies (ugh to the term) have pretty much been relegated to selecting china, that hasn’t been the case for all of them. (i.e. Eleanor Roosevelt.) Though not a Hillary supporter, I do kind of bristle a bit at the characterization of her experience. Because for a long time that was the only way that women–albeit white, upper-class women in the U.S.–were able to have any political power at all. And women are still underrepresented in these kinds of power positions, although white women are certainly less underrepresented. Hillary sure didn’t help herself with distortions, but I was angered by the pundits sneering at the very idea that a politically active First Lady could have experience from that. Never mind the fact that the system advantages white men from the very beginning.

    I realize the issues with unelected political figures, but many high-up officials are not directly elected, either. I wish the primary had featured a serious discussion of what Hillary did and didn’t do while in the White House, most notably the failure with healthcare. Asking the media to focus on actual issues is clearly a pipe dream, however.

  68. ms four wrote:

    Actually, Black Canseco, you are reading my words wrong. I said this: “there is a value in seeing how women are oppressed as women, even as we acknowledge that women of color have a double burden.”

    And I meant that there is value is seeing how ALL women are oppressed as women but also with the understanding that women of color face other kinds of oppression in addition to sexism/misogyny.

    That was in response to you suggesting that we should parse the kinds of oppression women of color face.

    My whole point was that in many of the attacks on Michelle Obama, I’ve seen misogyny laced with racism. Or perhaps racism laced with misogyny. (And this thought occurred to my white feminist brain all on my own!)

    Language is powerful, I know, and go ahead and parse my words if you like. I’m still learning, just as we all here. And of course you don’t have to give me the benefit of the doubt. But I did want to correct what I perceived as a misreading of my words.

    I am a white feminist and benefit tremendously from white privilege. I know that. I’ve also read bell hooks, Maya Angelou, Audre Lorde, Patricia Hill Collins, Angela Davis, Gloria Anzaldua, among others, and this was outside of the classes I took on African Women, African American Women, and Black History from the Civil War to the Present. I am the mother of two black sons.

    I say this not to prove anything about what I do or know, but I can say that if you think this white feminist is hopeless, we’re all in trouble.

  69. Mira wrote:

    I really didn’t get the Root article. It seemed sort of like they wanted to point out the fallaciousness of the idea that racism and sexism can’t be fought at the same time, but they never really came out and said it; indeed, it seems like they furthered it by suggesting that white feminists aren’t affected by misogynist attacks on Michelle Obama. It’s totally bizarre to me to suggest that sexism isn’t sexism when it’s used against a black woman.

    Yeah. So I really didn’t know what to make of this article.

  70. Eric Daniels wrote:

    I am never surprised by the racist attitudes of white feminists and Clintons

    It’s ironic in a year where the Clinton’s played the race and gender cards with such dexterity you would thought they were competing in the World Series of Poker. I really must say as a black male who grew up in the hood I have this saying, “dogs that howl in the night never scared a street boy like me”, the racism of white female Clinton supporters and Democratic Whites just confirmed why I became an independent 20 years ago.

    The Obama campaign if it did one good thing was expose the racism /condescending sexism of White Women in the Democratic Party starting with Gloria Steinem’s stupid article in January, who said that Black Men have it easier in America than White Women was the “shot heard in Black America” and changed the campaign along with Bob Johnson of BET calling Obama a “crackhead” just damned HRC’s campaign. She ran a terrible campaign but White/Black/Hispanic Democratic Clinton supporters can’t face up to st8 facts, instead they blame the Obamas, black voters, and other Democrats for being stupid maybe they were being rational. When you had nearly 12 months to get ready to face Obama and when realizing that your opponent is actually credible, you then use race, sex, and class cards to win your party’s nomination AND want to rescind what all the candidates agreed on in states that broke the rules (Republicans in florida only got a half- vote for violation of moving their primary to early)and then calling Obama an “inadequate black male” there will be damage that will take generations to fix. I asked these Clinton supporters if she stole the nomination how will she win in Nov?

    Well HRC would had needed a huge black vote to win the general election so how was she going to manage that after she offended the most loyal party members in a primary when she courted the most racist whites and Hispanics in her party on to try to back door herself into the nomination? The only good thing is that African- Americans will be more cynical and be political “free agents” and have permanent interests not alliances with either party because both are racist and sexist towards Black Men and Women.The Clinton’s have destroyed the Democratic Party in America through their blind ambition and have created fractures that will never heal entirely. In the begining people thought it was great that a white woman and a Black Man were running and had a legitimate chance to be POTUS, well now it is like a blood war with no winners and a divided party that will not heal for decades.

  71. nat, london wrote:

    I agree with this article. However, we as white women and women of colour need to realise that we are being set up against eachother. Divide and rule is the oldest and most effective strategy aimed at maintaining the status quo. Many of these so called feminists are in the pay of media organisations owned by elites who have no interest in white women or non whites having power. The fact that many white feminists have fallen hook line a sinker for the divide and rule tactic is very sad but at least they have now been exposed as not being true feminists but agents of the establishment.

  72. Pheagan wrote:

    I really can’t stand this whole “let’s watch Michelle Obama get it” attitude, or those idiot “feminists” that are planning to vote for McCain– God knows what they’re trying to accomplish. I’m a white feminist, and Michelle Obama has been the shining star in this campaign for me from the beginning. I don’t agree with the premise in the first place– I have read and heard many black women support Hilary Clinton and decry the sexism levelled at her during her campaign. and EVEN IF I accepted the premise, which I don’t, what twisted kind of logic makes anyone think women can possibly make progress by standing by and watching any woman take it on the nose. I mean, I would even defend Ann Coulter if she were a victim of sexism, much as I loathe the woman. It’s about being who you are and representing your beliefs, not reacting the the ill-percieved beliefs of others.

  73. majong wrote:

    We elect non-professional politicians all the time into office, send them to DC to write bills, conduct congressional hearings, respresent us in governement. Many are community lawyers, teachers, doctors, business people who have never worked in government. Hillary ran for senate knowing so much more than her cohorts. Hillary is a spouse of an experienced politician, she has had the privilege of experiencing our government and foreign governments that many of us will never never get to experience. She’s not a Laura Bush, who just admitted after 8 years that she finally learned she has a voice to advocate for others, but an active and engaging person. It’s not surprising that she took her role as First Lady to advocate and make positive changes. I took no offense when she claimed experience from Bill’s presidency- I’m sure she was very well-versed in many of the policies and events that took place, as has been explained with NAFTA. I own myown business and my husband has no official role in it and has no title….if he were to step into my role should something happen, I am confident he already knows every detail about what I do and how to run my business. I am no engineer and no formal training, but you wouldn’t know if when you hear me talk shop with his colleagues over a work dinner. That’s part of being a supportive, involved, and interested life partner.

  74. DollyAnn wrote:

    As a third wave white feminist, I feel a little frustrated at being thrown into a group where my only representation is Geraldine Ferraro, Gloria Steinem, and Hillary Clinton. These aren’t the women that I look at as feminists. So why does everyone assume that because I look like them, their views and actions must be emblematic of mine?

    While I don’t want to downplay the very real problems feminism has had/still does, I do think part of this is media manipulating. Like, in all honesty, I don’t believe floods of Hillary supporters are getting ready to vote for McCain this fall. I think that’s something the media tells us to antagonize people and get Obama supporters on their hackles. I also think white feminists are more concerned today (in general) about racism, heterosexism, etc. because we are discussing intersectionality in the classroom. Or, that could just be my experience. I came to learn about white privilege and problems of racism through my studies in feminism. Perhaps that’s part of the new generation of feminists?

    I definitely think Michelle got some crappy treatment at the hands of the media. I actually think it was discussed on The Angry Black Woman’s blog… I don’t know. I wish that there were white feminists I could count on to address issues of race, not just sex in the media.

  75. Lisa J wrote:

    @ Merry “If any wife of a president was ever more involved in policy than she was, please point that person out to me.” Eleanor Roosevelt who FDR constantly consulted on issues and sent everywhere to speak on his behalf and see things he couldn’t due to his disability is one and Edith Bolling Galt Wilson who pretty much was the president after her husband Woodrow Wilson had a stroke. Check it out on Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Bolling_Galt_Wilson. Not to not give Hillary her due but these ladies did a LOT too.

    And you know Margaret Thatcher, or Golda Meir, who are of a different ilk politically, gained power on their own in very patriarcal socities on their own and though we all know they had to face tons of sexism everyday, they never let it get in their way and they didn’t (perhaps unfortunately so) really talk about it, they just pushed through it. Maybe that was the wrong way to do it, but it may have been part of why they succeded. I don’t like their politics at all but you have to admire them for what they did. It seems like Barak is doing the same thing to some extent on race issues. I still am not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing or just a necessary thing but maybe it is? I don’t know.

  76. DiosaNegra1967 wrote:

    @ dolly ann: not being intentionally “mean” here, but the “frustration” you feel at being lumped in with Ferraro, Steinem and the gang….is what Black women (and Black people, in general) have felt for millennia.

    when one (or a few) does something wrong or suspect….we ALL wind up taking the “hit” for it….

    it ain’t right….it’s just how things tend to operate….until we make an effort to stand up and stop the madness…

  77. DollyAnn wrote:

    I didn’t think of that diosa. Thanks for pointing it out to me. My apologies. :(

  78. DollyAnn wrote:

    Oh, and you weren’t being mean either, diosanegra. You’re right; we just have to make an effort to stop the *madness*. Lol, I like that word…

  79. Leigh-Anne wrote:

    I am at once thoroughly dumbfounded and angered by the views expressed in the “Cost of Silence” article.

    Yet again, the essay’s writers provide an example of how far too many white folks who regard themselves as “liberal” and “progressive” — feminists included — respond to what they perceive as slights people of color commit against them: they pass the buck, and thus, miss the point. (To quote my favorite white anti-racist critic, Tim Wise).

    For white feminists, in particular, and white liberals/progressives/Leftists, in general, the issue ought *not* to be how they believe the mass of people of color react to attacks on white folks (a perception that is almost always going to be analytically flawed because of white folks’ almost always unrecognized and unexamined social location as the inheritors and benefactors of historical, institutionalized racism and the bearers of subconscious individual racist beliefs) — the issue ought to be how white folks remain and continue to both thoughtlessly and deliberately utilize and exploit their racial/white skin privilege and participate in the oppression of people of color. Period.

    In other words, focus on your own shit white folks.
    Please.

    Clean up the rot and stench in your own house before you march into the homes of others pointing fingers at the dust bunnies in the corner.

    The “Cost of Silence” essay brings to mine how siblings explain themselves when they’ve misbehaved: “I beat the pulp out of Timmy because he hit me first.”

    Immature. Ridiculous. Unintelligent.

    But unlike the “Cost of Silence” writers, and the white folks that share their views, children at least can use age as an excuse for their intellectual myopia and overly-simplistic, hostile reaction to a perceived wrong.

    On the other hand, the “Cost of Silence” writers’ reaction to a perceived transgression can be interpreted as a discursive indulgence in white denial.

    How supremely messed up is it to consider the response/non-response of white feminists to misogynistic attacks on Michelle Obama (or any woman of color) — sexist attacks that are also *always* racist because they are launched at a woman of color — *only* in context (or in relationship to) what women of color did (or didn’t do) when Hillary Clinton was targeted by sexism (???????!!!!!!!)

    To put it eloquently (and ultra mildly) : that is extremely messed up!

    The “Cost of Silence” writers might have proved themselves to be agents in the struggle against racism, sexism, and all forms of oppression by discussing the various reactions of white folks and people of color to sexist-racist assaults on Michelle Obama as well as sexism against Hillary Clinton and then offer suggestions as to how people, in general, can identify and resist complicity in racist-sexism against the fomer and sexism against the latter.

    If the “Cost of Silence” writers harbored a burning need to explore the complex reasons why women of color did not rush to Hillary Clinton’s defense when she was targeted for sexism — they could start by resisting the urge to over-generalize about women of colors’ responses (as our intellectually shrewd and beloved racialicious blogger, Nadra Kareem points out), clearly and with sufficient detail iterate the reasons (in a historical context) why *some* women of color *may* have responded in a particular way, acknowledge how such a response can be perceived as both productive and useful (as way for women of color to respond to and self-protect against Hillary Clinton’s and feminists’ racism, for example) as well as reinforce racism/sexism.

    And the “Cost of Silence” writers should not stop there — they should give more than a nod to white feminists’ collusion in white supremacy by silencing, marginalizing, and oppressing women of color in and outside of the feminist movement. The writers should give specific examples of white feminists’ particular complicity in the oppression of people of color, especially women of color, and white women’s general participation in institutional racism.

    The “Cost of Silence” writers chose to, instead, engage in the unproductive exercise of justifying white feminists’ racism when what they needed to do — what they should have done — was explain white feminists’ racism so that it can be effectively challenged and eliminated in feminist circles. THAT would attract the support and participation of women of color in a movement that has, without a doubt, done little to create a safe, anti-racist environment for women of color that seeks to empower them and support their leadership as well as genuinely acknowledge and act on the issues concerning women of color in the U.S. and around the world.

  80. MoeHailstone wrote:

    Its exactly why I never listen to self proclaimed feminists. The agenda seems to get garbled when it comes to the views of non white women.

  81. RH wrote:

    I have seen feminists call out sexism against Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, for the love. So it is infuriating to hear an argument that feminists have a reason to stand by while Michelle Obama gets attacked.

  82. Black Canseco wrote:

    DollyAnn wrote:

    “As a third wave white feminist, I feel a little frustrated at being thrown into a group where my only representation is Geraldine Ferraro, Gloria Steinem, and Hillary Clinton. These aren’t the women that I look at as feminists. So why does everyone assume that because I look like them, their views and actions must be emblematic of mine?”

    DollyAnn, my suggestion to encourage feminists and white women in your sphere of influence to speak out against this division. Because the problem isn’t what Geraldine Ferraro or Gloria Steinem or Hilary Clinton surrogates write or say, the problem is the millions who proudly and loudly go along with it.

    I haven’t had heated debates with magazine op-eds or sitting in my living room arguing with the pundits on TV. no, I’ve had to witness this “white women”= feminism crap getting spewed by white women and self-proclaimed feminists on college campuses where i teach, in workplaces that i’ve worked in and in neighborhoods that i’ve live/have lived in.

    it’s not top-down–or the product of a few big mouths. It’s not a “distortion of the media”. It’s not “first or second wavers”. It’s a pervasive mindset that has seeped into virtually every level and every generation of feminism and white female culture.

    Is it 100%? no. but from what i and others who rail against this have seen, i’m inclined to believe that it’s closer to 80% than not.

  83. Black Canseco wrote:

    ms four wrote:

    “Actually, Black Canseco, you are reading my words wrong. I said this: “there is a value in seeing how women are oppressed as women, even as we acknowledge that women of color have a double burden.”

    I made a point of stating that i understood that you may have not been your intent but that it came off that way. Specifically I said:

    “i’m not saying that’s how you meant it, but that how it comes across and more importantly, that how far too many so-called feminists actually mean it and articulate their views as such.”

    Now if you want to go out of your way to make yourself a victim in this discussion, then by go for it.

  84. Marc wrote:

    Black feminists support Hillary, if you watched coverage of the convention on CNN, they had an interview with an African-American woman who was very emotional after Hillary gave her speech; she said she loved Hillary, and how she would be a great president. Obama is fully aware of the moment, and his constituent base; he knows he needs Hillary’s support to win this election. And Hillary supporters are aware that Obama is the “lesser of two evils”. I think the issue between Hillary and Obama supporters is not where they stand on key issues, but which side of history both camps are standing on (first AA nominee or first Woman nominee).

  85. Suzanne wrote:

    Fantastic piece. It also makes me wonder what future feminist leaders will look and act like as the population of the US changes dramatically over the next few decades. I think all of the voices from difference backgrounds that are challenging the “traditional” model of feminism (all women have universal experiences, and that is the one of the dominant culture/ethnic group) are leading to exciting and useful new ways of thinking about and defining feminism. It is definitely time for a new model when talking about women’s rights. This election certainly highlights that.

  86. NancyP wrote:

    I am annoyed that many commenters seem to conflate “white feminists” as being in lock step with *everything* HRC , Ferraro, and Steinem say. In blaming “white feminists”, you are blaming a small sector of media-identified feminists, many of whom aren’t feminist. The ‘ “feminist” “PUMA”crat voting for McCain out of spite’ meme is a media-driven ploy to magnify a few political operatives into a Trend that doesn’t exist but can be used to further split alliances. The PUMAs are about as numerous as Black Republican activists.

    My reaction to all of the uproar is “STFU, it’s being driven by corporate media, turn off the tube and do some FTF work”. I am soooo tired of the few politically challenged genuine Hillary diehards . Get down to your local Democratic office and start stuffing envelopes! Work for a woman local or state candidate, if you don’t feel like working for Obama. We need Dems at all levels, and we need to grow national level politicians from state senators, mayors, and the like.

  87. Black Canseco wrote:

    Suzanne:
    “It is definitely time for a new model when talking about women’s rights. This election certainly highlights that.”

    Couldn’t agree more!

    “It also makes me wonder what future feminist leaders will look and act like as the population of the US changes dramatically over the next few decades.”

    It’s really unfortunate that it takes shifting demographics for the women’s movement to consider the possibility that no one ethnic group has the right, the authority or the insight to speak for all women.

    it’s like the change can only come when white women are either outnumbered by or completely ignored by women of color to the point that they have no choice but to be inclusive.

    that’s almost as sad the original problem itself.

  88. Black Canseco wrote:

    NancyP

    as i wrote to DollyAnn, it’s not the PUMA or the elite few that the media highlight, it’s what goes on at a grassroots, day to day level that reflects what we see. If it were just Steniem and some random surrogates and pundits people would be annoyed but would ignore it.

    everytime a thread like this comes up on this and other ethnic-centric sites you get dozens up dozens of people talking about daily frustrations that come from dealing with white women and so-called feminists in their daily interactions that are as bad if not worse than what gets put on TV.

    You can blame some “meme” or the “media” or “the crazy few” all you want, but the problem is that this is far more widespread than you want to admit to. And until we stop treating this as “a few goofs” or a remnant of “those old first wavers” and recognize that classism and race-based bias/cultural arrogance are now and have always been part of the feminist movement, you can’t fix it.

    I’m not calling any individual women/feminist out beyond those we’ve already mentioned, but it’s time to step up and quite playing the “oh i’m one of the good ones” and “don’t lump us all together” card. if it’s not you, talk to those who fall under this catgeory because it’s a fucking lot of them. far too many to continue acting like it’s not.

  89. JC wrote:

    I guess these women identify more with their race than their sex, and somehow still consider themselves themselves feminists. I think they should be honest and call themselves white female racists., since the race part somehow trump the feminine part.

    Having said that, I still give them props for fighting white male dominance. Aside from the blacks, white females probably suffered the most from the white male world we live in today. However, it’s a shame they themselves use the same racial crap the white dudes use for the subjugation of all other races and sex on their fellow women. Sometimes the abused becomes the abuser. Sign.

  90. DollyAnn wrote:

    Black Canesco, I’m really sorry you and the people you know have had such bad experiences with white women and white feminists. I certainly do not argue with your experiences, and if they’re as bad as you say I’m embarrassed to be a part of the people who have caused you so much hurt. Without a doubt, feminism has been tangled up in many problems of racism and classism, just as you say.

    But I think our (meaning my and Nancy P’s) feeling of not wanting to get “lumped” (especially with people we don’t consider feminist) is a valid one. As diosanegra pointed out to me, black people feel “lumped together” when white people look at a single black person in the media as their collective representative. I don’t think either of these “lumpings” is fair. (DiosaNegra, if I’ve misinterpreted you, don’t hesitate to call me out on it).

    As I mentioned in my previous post, I came to discover and acknowledge white privilege because I am a feminist. Had I not taken classes in feminist studies I would never have learned about the real problems of racism, the interconnectedness of oppressions, or probably even have visited this blog. That’s why I’m careful to distinguish between third wave and second wave feminisms because that’s all I can think of to account for my own education on racism in a feminist setting… not because I’m denying that the third wave still doesn’t have its problems with racism and classism.

    You are right to call out for action though. White feminsts do need to make sure today that they are tackling issues of racism, classism, ageism, heterosexism, and numerous other problems so that we don’t repeat history. Criticizing articles like the “Cost of Silence” that allow us as white feminists to shrug off our responsibilites (which include being antiracist allies) is part of that. And you’re also right that white feminists who acknowledge white privilege have a responsibility to talk to those who are ignorant of it or refuse to see it.

    And, sorry to be nitpicky, but I think just about all of the “first wavers” are dead. Otherwise, they’re REALLY old. :)

  91. gsutiger2 wrote:

    Wow!
    Never thought about it that way. I am a African American female. We are hit, kicked, and pre judged everyday. Never thought I would need to come to the defense of an entitled women who is just having my everyday experience.

    I quess it will just make her stronger. Trust me during the civil rights after White women got there “privalege” they left us for dead & still do.

  92. Suzanne wrote:

    Black Canseco: It’s my hope that this new model will come before the big demographic shifts, not just because of it. I’m interested in taking action today to bring about the changes. I think there is a critical mass of younger feminists who also feel this way, too. Or at least I hope so. Otherwise, I give up.

  93. Free wrote:

    You know, I have a dream too, had it ever since I became politically aware at the age of 8: a black, female president. Well, I can’t have my Michelle Obama (ya know what I mean), but at least they had a shot with Hillary. And so now they’re all pissy and shit, reminds me of white women I’ve worked with who, when we disagreed over policy and they couldn’t get their way, cried. How unprofessional! And yet, in those all white liberal non-profits I suddenly became the angry black female and suddenly lost support for my positions.

    Corinne Douglas and Jacquelyn Gray don’t have anywhere to go but down with their pettiness and marginalizing themselves with their little manifesto.

    “But we cannot expect white feminists to come to
    the defense of Michelle Obama if we deny them the ability to, at a minimum, identify their own mistreatment at the hands of the same oppressors that are victimizing Michelle.”

    WHAT? Who is stopping them? I could make a list right now to email and fax!

    Corinne Douglas and Jacquelyn Gray, thanks a lot for widening the chasm created by the oppressors.

  94. Witchsistah wrote:

    Free, what you have experienced (and I and too many Blacks are familiar with) on your job was something some of us who discuss these issues at LiveJournal call White Woman Syndrome. This involves, but is not limited to, the use of tears, accusations of hostility, anger and just plain being mean, and positioning themselves as the damsels in distress whenever found on the wrong side of a social issue. Ironically, engagers in these behaviors use them to play up the idea of delicate, vulnerable, White femininity that must be protected from the demands of the brutish, sub-human, irrational, animalistic, hyper-masculinized colored hordes and to provoke rescuing responses from onloookers (also ironically) of whatever race and gender (though White men seem to take the bait the most from my unscientific observations). This rescuing often involves some sort of vilification of the person calling the White woman in question on her dirt or daring to disagree with her.

    WWS is predicated on gendered White privilege or White women feeling that they are above having to deal with what other groups do on the daily. For example, the White feminists here demanding that we, mostly commenters of color, do NOT dare lump them in with the authors of said article, Gloria Steinhem and Geraldine Ferraro simply due to them being White and calling themselves feminists. However, as one commenter of color explained, this is what Blacks have to go through all the time, and we don’t even get to go into political specifics! Still, even with that clarification, the demand still stands, “Yeah, it sucks to be you, darkie, but we’re White women and we don’t deserve such treatment!”

    What we’re supposed to do in response is pat their hands, envelope them in our Mammy Bosoms of Love and assure them, “Thar, thar, honeychile! I’ze knowz you good White folk! I won’t let them ungrateful darkies pick on you no mo!” Yet again, our pain gets dismissed and White women’s discomfort yet again takes center stage as they demand emotional care from us! No one here is even asking them to emotionally caretake US for a change! We’re challenging them to go back to their own and educate them! Still that message is resisted in favor of them positioning themselves at the center YET AGAIN!

  95. Michelle wrote:

    The problem is, while we as Black women can point to many prominent Black women who supported Hillary and came to the her defense, White women can barely make the same claim. White women can’t readily point to White women pundits, analysts and poet laureates who have come to Michelle Obama’s defense, simply because she was a fellow “woman” warrior. How many White women, speaking under the banner of womanism/feminism/female empowerment/women’s rights came to the side of Michelle Obama? And how many openly support Obama simply because he is the only candidate that has publicly made a stand on a woman’s right to choose? Where are they? I can point to Maxine Waters, and Maya Angelou who wrote a poem called “Rise Hillary Rise”, for the love of all that is good.

    That is why Black women feel as though they have been betrayed. This blog should not be the only sphere of influence for rational White feminists who can make the claim that they see Michelle Obama as a fellow woman and stand behind her as such. As much as the dialogue is sorely needed, you women can’t be the only one’s whose opinion is in print. That is why, for now, you do have to suffer the rantings, ravings and writings of those of who have a national forum. Perhaps you could start a blog of your own entitled “Sojorner Truth’s Question Answered At Last” or “Yes, Yes we Can….see that you are women too” or “Women first, White second”. While Fox news might not come knocking, perhaps you can provide the alternate voice that is so sorely needed with the broader feminist political discourse.

  96. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Witchsistah -

    So, looking at your analysis in your last comment and I’m wondering…would you mind reviewing the Secret Life of Bees?

  97. GeeLennox wrote:

    Thanks for mentioning that Latoya.
    I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up the Secret Life of Bees.

  98. ms four wrote:

    Black Canseco, I just realized you’re a guy. I’m a lot more concerned about how women of color read my comments about feminism than how men of any color read them.

  99. DiosaNegra1967 wrote:

    @ free, witchsistah and michelle:

    thank you….thank you….a million times thank you. i’m experiencing WWS as we breathe in my non-profit sitch…

    (why IS it that this kind of behaviour happens in places where there are mottoes expounding “justice” and “rights”? talk about food for thought)

    anytime BW (or BP, for that matter) meet non-POC “on an equal level” (educationally, professionally, verbally, economically, etc.) without lowering their eyes or resorting to presenting themselves as second-class citizens….we are thought to be “aggressive”, “angry”, “loud”, and the many, many other descriptors used to disarm BP and paint us as “undesirable” or “irrational” and goddess-only-knows-what else….

    i know this post is about Mrs. Obama (and have y’all noticed that no one has referred to her as such….very telling. it’s as if….she’s a MARRIED Black woman? how novel!), but i’m compelled to mention how the media is harping on how “Americans feel that Barack Obama thinks he’s better than they are”….

    what a load of bollocks!

    newsflash “America”: mcsame doesn’t think he’s better than y’all….he KNOWS it! he just doesn’t say it to your face!

    sorry for the rant….i just had to get that off my chest…..

    great post.

  100. Joseph wrote:

    @Witchsistah
    “White Woman Syndrome…involves, but is not limited to, the use of tears, accusations of hostility, anger and just plain being mean, and positioning themselves as the damsels in distress whenever found on the wrong side of a social issue. Ironically, engagers in these behaviors use them to play up the idea of delicate, vulnerable, White femininity that must be protected from the demands of the brutish, sub-human, irrational, animalistic, hyper-masculinized colored hordes and to provoke rescuing responses from onloookers (also ironically) of whatever race and gender (though White men seem to take the bait the most from my unscientific observations). This rescuing often involves some sort of vilification of the person calling the White woman in question on her dirt or daring to disagree with her.”

    I have been staying out of this because I’ve wanted–for myself–to move on from my feelings of bitterness over the shadiness of the primary (although I support having conversations like these in general and I’ve been following this 0ne). But I had to quote you above because I have never heard this phenomenon described so succinctly before, thank you.

    While I don’t think it is entirely fair to assume that white women/feminists enjoy unambiguous privilege–nobody with a vagina gets that in this culture–I have also had to deal with white women in professional situations behaving as you describe above.

  101. Joseph wrote:

    Dana Bash on CNN just confirmed that 44-year old Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska is his VP pick.

    Here we go.

  102. Joseph wrote:

    McCain. McCain’s VP pick.

  103. Nadra wrote:

    I am stunned that McCain chose a woman. This feels like a gimmick. Like how Bush chose Condi and Colin or how his father chose Clarence Thomas to be on the Supreme Court. It doesn’t matter whether Sarah Palin’s views are completely anti-feminist. The fact that she is a woman is supposed to get Hillary voters for McCain. This feels like a gimmick, and I am so pissed.

  104. Witchsistah wrote:

    I’m a lot more concerned about how women of color read my comments about feminism than how men of any color read them.

    Then why don’t you engage them instead of spending your time responding to the one person you realized was a man?

    That’s also a tactic I’ve seen on the net, engage everyone BUT WOC while claiming that’s whom you wish to talk to.

    anytime BW (or BP, for that matter) meet non-POC “on an equal level” (educationally, professionally, verbally, economically, etc.) without lowering their eyes or resorting to presenting themselves as second-class citizens….we are thought to be “aggressive”, “angry”, “loud”, and the many, many other descriptors used to disarm BP and paint us as “undesirable” or “irrational” and goddess-only-knows-what else….

    I was recently fired from a temp job for no other reason than I was too competent, intelligent, educated and didn’t shuffle around the White woman in question. I could tell from the vague, non-reasons she gave me for why I wasn’t a good fit (even though I picked up the job in two weeks–of staggered workdays–while my predecessor hadn’t gotten the hang of the gig after three months). She even said that I was not approachable. Forget that she never bothered to approach me for any other reason than to assign tasks for me, which I readily and happily completed. It wasn’t like she wanted to shoot the shit with me and I kept shutting her down. Basically “approachable” meant “I can run you.” She was ticked she couldn’t (and that I was endangering her job by being better educated than her with more experience) so I had to go.

    I’ve been enduring crap like that on various jobs from White women during my work experiences. But that was the last straw. I no longer wish to have a job, since, thanks to the Affirmative Action lottery they’ve won, White women are everywhere in the workforce. I just cannot deal with their double-dealing, two-faced, backstabbing bullshit anymore. I consider myself retired.

    Mrs. Obama (and have y’all noticed that no one has referred to her as such….very telling. it’s as if….she’s a MARRIED Black woman? how novel!)

    Now, I’m a housewife (or as I like to put it Kept Woman of Leisure) and am most likely going to stay that way. And if you think folk think it’s weird to see a MARRIED Black woman in their midst (I cannot tell you how many White folk claimed not to know I was engaged and now married, even though I wore/wear my engagement/wedding ring all the time. And it’s hard for that gold to and diamonds to blend in with my dark brown skin), they think you’re from another planet or LYING if you have a husband willing to support you so you don’t have to work! And even then, they refuse to believe you live anything like a middle class lifestyle! Y’all MUST be living in some ghetto or project (Puleeeez let that be true!). I once had a White, femal co-worker shocked when I mentioned our house in passing. She stopped me in mid-conversation and asked, “Wait a minute! You have a HOUSE?!” as if that were just warping all the physics of the universe.

  105. KuriousJorge612 wrote:

    McCain was smart to pick Palin for VP, even though she’s about as liberal as Ann Coulter. I don’t think it’s right but many HRC Back will vote for McCain/Palin because they feel HRC was disrespected by not Obama himself but his supporters.

    No matter what you think of her, I know a lot of her supporters think that all of the thing said about her were over the top, demonizing, whatever you wanna call it. I actually think that THEroot.com article has it wrong, but not for the same reasons as most of you.

    I don’t think it’s about “white feminists” as whole, but female Hillary supporters as a whole who feel like “well, Hillary went through people making crazy assumptions saying horrible things, judging, nitpicking, etc., So now that they’re doing the same think to Michelle………….. oh well, deal with it.” I can kind of see where they’re coming from, I mean many of the same people who were probably saying those mean things about Hillary are know crying on this post about some the same things being said about Michelle now.

    But I agree, voting for McCain is Wack, just because you’re mad about that. But I kind of thought this would happen. Especially after reading the things Clinton and Obama supporters were saying to each other on Huffington post/ Daily Kos.

  106. Sarah wrote:

    If there’s WWS, then what’s WMS? Why is that not described in the same highly gendered terms, in the same tone? I’m not saying the phenomena doesn’t exist, but the double-standard kind of irks. These discussions always seem to harp on white women more than white men, despite the lack of evidence that white men are actually less racist. Why is this? Is it because of the expectation that white women understand racism better because we don’t have white male privilege? Which I would hope would be the case, actually, but unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be for the overwhelming majority. And yes, I know this thread is about white feminists, but the lack of a “WMS” is still something to consider.

    I know too well that many of my fellow white women play up their race privilege by playing the “damsel in distress” card, hence reinforcing sexist gender roles as they do it. Heck, I’ve probably been guilty of this myself. But the stereotype of women, white or not, as stereotypical is harmful. I’ve spent much of my life being “read” as a hysterical, possibly manipulative female by others–almost all of them other white people. In fact, I have a neurological disability and mental health issues which went unnoticed until I was almost an adult. If I’d been a white boy who acted the same way, no one would have automatically assumed that I was being hysterical for no reason or a “drama queen.” I don’t mean to excuse the behavior of white women who really are taking advantage of their privilege, but please, please, please realize that sweeping stereotypes do hurt. Yes, I know POC are subjected to them constantly and that’s a gross injustice. But to use that as a “reason” why stereotyping white women just feels kind of flimsy to me.

  107. A. wrote:

    Now, let’s watch some of these “feminists” flock over to McCain, like idiots.

    I’m going to watch their rights be stripped, their sons go off to die, possibly watching McCain reinstate the draft, and watching us plunge into WWIII. Meanwhile, these “feminists” supposedly are so interested in the rights of women?

    They’re freaking ridiculous. They’re only concerned about the rights of themselves as WHITE women. Race always trumps sex, even in spite of the cute little front that they try to put on to lure us WoC into their game.

    White feminists, if you break this election by voting for McCain, you will be deserving of everything that is about to come to you – because many of us PoC know what the hell is coming to us with a McCain presidency.

  108. ms four wrote:

    Witchsistah, I thought Black Canseco was a woman until I heard Carmen and Latoya on an early July Addicted to Race podcast talking about him. And that was my last post on the issue, saying that I was not so interested in responding to him because of his gender (well, sex, in this case). Indeed, I’m a bit puzzled as to why a black man would engage a white woman on behalf of women of color.

    I’ve posted a lot on Racialicious over the past year, and I’ve engaged with women of color with far more frequency than with any men. I have learned a ton, especially from Carmen and Latoya, and I’ve learned I’ve been wrong a lot, too.

    I haven’t so much on this thread, mostly because after my first comment, I’ve mostly been reading and learning and thinking about why we continue to see so much racism amongst white feminists.

    In real life, most of my conversations about women’s issues have been with Muslim women of color because I live and work in Egypt and am fascinated by the issue of women in Islam and women in Egyptian society.

    I’m not saying I can’t do better, but I do think I’m trying. And I certainly don’t expect anyone to spend their time educating me at the expense of engaging in deeper conversations.

  109. ms four wrote:

    (To clarify, I heard that early July podcast yesterday afternoon. I’m catching up.)

  110. Michelle wrote:

    Maybe I am wrong, but I thought that Roe v Wade was as central to the feminist movement/bodypolitic, as Brown v BOE was to the Black movement/bodypolitic. I am not trying to engage in a debate over Roe v Wade, and I know that there are a lot of women who are against abortion. But in the realm of feminism, I thought a woman’s right to choose was at the heart of the discourse.

    Palin does not support a woman’s right to choose. I am not saying that because she is a woman, she should. I am saying that if you are a feminist, loyal to the cause, shouldn’t you run from anything that dares to take away one of the rights that you hold most dear? Are feminists really ready to let go of RvW?

    Part of me is in awe that as a Black man (or tan, is it?) heads the ticket of the democratic party, I could also see abortion become illegal in my life time.

  111. Celeste wrote:

    I get a bad feeling about McCain’s VP pick. I think the gimmick will work and he’ll get a lot of white feminists to switch sides.

  112. Black Canseco wrote:

    ms four wrote:

    Black Canseco, I just realized you’re a guy. I’m a lot more concerned about how women of color read my comments about feminism than how men of any color read them.

    Well ms four, as a man of color–i’ve never hid that fact from anyone here in all the years i’ve been out here–i’m clearly not qualified to debate or discuss any issue with you, so i’ll refrain from dialoguing with you from now on.

    i sit in my little hole and wait for women like you tell me what to think and when to speak.

    thx for straightening me out.

  113. ms four wrote:

    Celeste, I think a lot of the support for McCain is talk, an expression of anger and disappointment, and on election day, most of these disgruntled white feminists will vote for Obama, or at the very least, not for McCain. Especially with groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL going all out for Obama.

    This seems like a few years ago, when I and other Dean supporters took a long time to get over Kerry’s win. I was so unenthused for Kerry all fall, but I still voted for him.

  114. A. wrote:

    @Celeste.

    This won’t surprise me. One bit.

    And if McCain gets into the White House because of these women, feminism will have discredited itself as being for the interests of all women.

    For the real feminists here, and pretty much EVERYWHERE – you all have a lot of work to do to try to salvage what is left of your philosophies and beliefs. Because now, feminism is in a very tough situation.

  115. Miz JJ wrote:

    @Witchsistah: Thank you for your posts. I have thouroughly enjoyed reading someone break it down.

    Also, I have noted that it took a major feminist blog less than an hour to respond to the sexism that Pallin is ‘already’ facing.

  116. Black Canseco wrote:

    “feminism will have discredited itself as being for the interests of all women.”

    A., i think you’re assuming that feminism has always been for all women. to say that quite a few would disagree is an understatement.

  117. different Ali wrote:

    @Miz JJ
    If I’m assuming right which blog you’re refering to (my apologies if I’m not), they also have a series of posts responding to the racism against Barack Obama and the racism and sexism against Michelle Obama.

  118. squidfly wrote:

    Let’s not forget the Obama campaign defeated the most powerful Democratic force since the Kennedy’s. He can’t pull the POW card for much longer, this kind of traction gets caught in it’s own muck.

  119. Witchsistah wrote:

    Sarah says:

    If there’s WWS, then what’s WMS? Why is that not described in the same highly gendered terms, in the same tone? I’m not saying the phenomena doesn’t exist, but the double-standard kind of irks. These discussions always seem to harp on white women more than white men, despite the lack of evidence that white men are actually less racist. Why is this? Is it because of the expectation that white women understand racism better because we don’t have white male privilege? Which I would hope would be the case, actually, but unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be for the overwhelming majority. And yes, I know this thread is about white feminists, but the lack of a “WMS” is still something to consider.

    There is the “White Knight Syndrome” that is the response to WWS. It is basically what it sounds like, White men running to the rescue of the White woman displaying the syndrome. It’s interesting when this is employed AGAINST a WOC because it goes against the supposed chivalrous idea of men not attacking the weaker sex. However, this is where sexism is racialized. WOC are defeminized. We are seen as not being as feminine, as ladylike as White women. In the case of Black women, we are often utterly stripped of any and all femininity and masculinized (without any of the masculine privileges, I might add) and even animalized (made to seem alien and bestial) so that it seems okay for a man to attack a woman.

    Happy now?

    And may I add…
    Yet again, our pain gets dismissed and White women’s discomfort yet again takes center stage as they demand emotional consideration from us! No one here is even asking them to emotionally caretake US for a change! We’re challenging them to go back to their own and educate them! Still that message is resisted in favor of them positioning themselves at the center YET AGAIN!

  120. Witchsistah wrote:

    As for the movie review, I’ve never seen “The Secret Life of Bees.” Sorry, can’t help you out there.

  121. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Witchsistah –

    I only made it halfway through the book.

    Plot summary:

    http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/secretbees/summary.html

    Can you guess why?

  122. Sarah wrote:

    Witchsistah:

    I don’t entirely see how WWS is analogous to WWS. I’ve often see WWS in the context of white women acting in racist, privileged ways. Okay. Then what’s WMS? How does gender-race conditioning affect the way in which white men show privilege? I hardly think that it would be inappropriate to discuss the privileged behaviors of white men after 100+ posts focusing almost entirely on white women.

    I know that stereotypes of white womanhood work against WOC, but it’s not a zero-sum game. If anything, this whole conversation has illuminated just how complicated privilege and oppression are. For instance, in WWS there’s tons of white privilege at work. There’s also a lot of subtext about the way in which white women are socialized to believe that the damsel in distress is the pinnacle of womanhood. Actions aren’t always either oppressive or a sign of being oppressed oneself. They can be both at once.

    I am very sorry if you felt I was trying to dismiss your pain, or that of any other WOC. I brought up my own situation because bloggers here have expressed an interest in exploring other issues of social oppression, including ableism, and I thought it was worth mentioning within that context.

  123. Witchsistah wrote:

    @ Latoya Peterson:

    Oy! I’m so sick of these books, movies, TV shows where the sole role of Black women is to caretake the central White, female character. I cannot tell you how many White women I’ve run into that expect that same treatment from Black women in real life and get funky with us when we introduce them to real life where we are no more obligated to caretake them than we are to bed their men for them. Yes, people actually think Black women are SUPPOSED to be their Mammies, still.

  124. Witchsistah wrote:

    Sarah:

    I have already stated in a previous post that it was a White male driven and controlled media that attacked Hillary. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of White men, now is it? No one here is about to let White men off the hook only to place their racial issues on the backs of White women. Y’all got enough for us to honestly gig you over. We don’t have to make up stuff about y’all. This is one of the ways to deflect ownership of racism and racial discussions, to point at another group and say, “Well they do it too!” or “They’re worse than us!” So let’s stop spouting that shibboleth that because we are concentrating on the racism of White feminist/feminism/women, we’re somehow absolving White men of any and all racism or saying that somehow White women are worse.

    As for your demand that I give you a masculinized version of WWS, sorry, I don’t have one in my race-gender bag right now. Whites in general try to throw the blame back onto POC who bring them up short on their racial dirt in various ways. One is the method you’re using. One is to pull some sort of maginalized identity out their ass (that they do not live or relate to in their daily lives)–”My ancestors were Irish/Jewish!” “I’m 9/87ths Cherokee, descended from a Cherokee Princess!”–in order to silence or trump the POC’s “racial cred.” Hell, I’ve even seen White men pull out the tears to advantageous results. But the fact that I can not now articulate a White man’s version of WWS (or at least one that’d satisfy YOU) doesn’t negate the prevalence of WWS or that it is a regular ploy that White women use against not just WOC but POC in general AND White allies.

    Also, I don’t teach for free. My rates are $30 and hour per person. And I damn sure do not teach on demand. Last time I checked, I was free.

  125. A. wrote:

    @Black Canseco

    “A., i think you’re assuming that feminism has always been for all women. to say that quite a few would disagree is an understatement.”

    I meant to add officially. They would have to be able to salvage themselves, first. All that they could do now if they just up and jump on Sarah Palin is that they will completely put feminism in shambles, where really, no one would take them too seriously. At this point, it’s mainly just WoC and some MoC. Soon, it will be a whole lot more people than just some of us.

  126. Witchsistah wrote:

    Oh and Sarah:

    As for mental health issues, I’m a depressive. Looking back, I’ve probably been one all my life. But no one cared because I’m a Black woman. Pack mule of the world. The StrongBlackWoman. No one need give a damn about my psychological needs and health because I’m supposed to be like that old slogan for Timex watches. I’m supposed to take a lickin’ and keep on tickin’! I’m not supposed to ask for or require help, care, attention or affection. I’m supposed to carry everyone else’s burdens, including my own so that THEY can live wonderful lives.

    I’ve cried at work because of my illness. Did I get comforted? Hell no! I got looked at and treated like a crazy n-word bitch. Ask other Black women what would happen to them if they broke out the tears at their workplaces or political activist groups. More than likely, they’d get the same treatment.

    Mostly, my illness was dismissed because ol’ rhino-hided, she-beasts that are Black women just don’t GET depression. All my docs did was write scripts for SSRIs to get me out of their office. None recommended therapy. I had to seek that out and boy, what a motley bunch that was. They were all White and all scared shitless when I showed ANY strong emotion. One even went so far as to tell me how intimidated she was when I expressed anger over a situation with a then co-worker. Had absolutely NOTHING to do with her, but that didn’t stop her from WWS all over my session. I’ve not gone back to another therapist since.

    Hell, I diagnosed myself. No one even bothered to ask what was wrong with me. Black women do not have delicate feelings or sensibilities and don’t have the brains to interpret them being no better than dumb animals. While your mental disorder was definitely gendered, mine was racially gendered in ways specific to me as a Black woman.

    So can we get back to the subject at hand, racism within the White feminist community and how attacks on Black women are racist sexism and sexist racism instead of continually trying to deflect the conversation or throw the burden onto POC?

  127. Miz JJ wrote:

    @different Ali
    Agreed. They have done that as well.

    @Latoya: I put the book down half-way through too. I am so disapointed that Gina Prince-Bythewood is attached to the project. I have loved her since Love & Basketball and from reading about her experiences in Kristal Brent Zook’s book.

  128. Black Canseco wrote:

    Sarah:
    So much of feminism is rooted in casting White Male Patriarchary as the main villian with MOCs as sidekicks the sidekick/cohort that to mention WMS almost does a disservice to hierarchies in general.

    The focus on WWS stems from the participatory nature in which far too many white women have engaged not only in the oppression and marginalization and fetishization of POCs but in many instances, also of themselves.

    It’s been white women, not POCs and not white men and not the ubiquitous “media” that have equated the term “women” with white women.

    It wasn’t white men who relegated WOCs to the back of the ERA/NOW bus.

    it wasn’t solely white men or MOCs touting the 19th amendement as for white women while ignoring the voting rights of women of color who didn’t have their rights secured until the 1964/65 Voting and Civil Rights amendments.

    Not all, but far too many first- second- and yes even third wave (are we on 4th wave yet) feminists have consistently shirked their responsibilities in dialogs regarding race and class in the name of me-first (white women first) and blame the white guy/moc for everything.

    the result has alienated, frustrated and pissed off damn never every single male and female of color in the country, not because of the actions but because POCs are expected/assumed to be too stupid to see the obvious.

  129. Free wrote:

    @ Witchsistah – *embraces with sisterly love*

    Prepare for comparisons between Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin. This Facebook thread is infantile, but I think that the worst is yet to come.
    http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=6425923706&topic=7801

    “Here is a man [McCain]who has served his country in the darkest of places.” Gov. Sarah Palin, 29 August 2008 at 9:04AM.

  130. Sarah wrote:

    I did not mean to derail this thread or make “demands” on anyone. I was opening the issue of what “WMS” would be for discussion, because I find the issue interesting. Sure, there’s a lot of criticism directed at white male power structures from a lot of different directions. I just think it’s worth noting that these criticisms don’t usually take on the gendered language and ideas–”crying,” “hysterical,” “manipulative.” I think that’s worth noting, and I don’t think that noting that means giving anyone a pass on racism/privilege. Certainly white women have used the idea of “white womanhood” to their advantage, though probably with costs. Certainly POC have been on the receiving end of that. There’s a difference between pointing that out–what’s called WWS–and labeling general behaviors as “hysterical white woman” when it’s not necessarily oppressive, but simply behaviors like “crying at work.” I’m not saying any kind of “burden” is on POC–but I do think discussions involving feminism, even if they are critical, ought not to be uncritically accepting of gender norms and gendered language.

  131. Witchsistah wrote:

    Sarah:

    You cannot take this out of societal context. Even a “simple” behavior like crying at work, even if it is not meant to be a manipulative device, occurs not in a vacuum, but in a racial/gender construct. First off, who even HAS any freedom to cry at work? Secondly, and this determines the first, how is that behavior interpred depending on who is doing the crying? That many White women are well aware that they are given the space to engage in this behavior with few, if any negative consequences and a good chance of some positive ones and that they know that others are not allowed nearly the same freedoms speaks to this racial-gender coding. Only WOMEN are allowed this “privilege”/tool first off. And furthermore only those considered the most feminine are. In a mixed-raced and gendered workplace, that default falls on White women. So even if a White woman is engaging in such behavior whether or not she means it as a manipulative tool, she is exercizing her privilege at the expense of the POC around her.

    I see no need to speculate about the racial gender iniquities of White men, not because White men can do no wrong, but because they are not the subject of this discussion. The utter hypocrisy of some White feminists being exposed during this presidential campaign is as well as how Black women are treated in the media and society as it applies to this discussion. And I find it very interesting that many of the White feminists here are having such problems focusing on and discussing said issues.

  132. Black Canseco wrote:

    I’m not saying any kind of “burden” is on POC–but I do think discussions involving feminism, even if they are critical, ought not to be uncritically accepting of gender norms and gendered language.

    if you’re not saying the burden is on POCs, then why direct the criticism that way? why not simply tell POCs how to talk to white women. What’s the proper way, since apparently we’re incapable of doing so.
    What in your esteemed view would constitute proper etiquette and parameters to discuss issues of feminism without offending white women?

    And might i humbly add that whatever your suggestions are you work to make sure that WOCs and MOCs get afforded the same consideration from white women.

    but it sounds like everyone needs to pump their breaks each time a white women feels picked on in issues of feminism and classism.

  133. Michelle wrote:

    I read The Secret Life of Bees, and when you get to the end, you can KINDA see a whole different perspective. There is a payoff at the end. I promise. And the pain of Black women is very real in the book.

    I am ambivalent about the movie because of reasons that have nothing to do with the mammie issues. I heard that Gina PB is very excited with the project and how it is shaping up.

  134. Free wrote:

    @Witchsista – First off, who even HAS any freedom to cry at work?

    Hillary Clinton and Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

  135. browne wrote:

    I think it’s really hurtful for white feminists to imply that black woman did nothing while Hillary got attacked. That’s a straight up lie. Most of the black woman I knew in LA supported Hillary. I would say in regards to high profile black women who had power that maybe as much as 60% supported Hillary. And probably alot more before the campaign got nasty.

    But many black women bloggers did comment on the sexism that Hillary was getting and black women don’t even benefit in the same kind of gold at the end of the rainbow from feminism. We benefit in some ways and I am a radical feminist, but I’m not stupid. I can totally see that even though I’m really open and I really try to be part of the movement that my thoughts and opinions aren’t valued, but I’m there, because it’s not for me, but for the people behind me.

    Was Maxine Waters even at the convention? I heard she wouldn’t even let her staff members go to the DNC, because she’s still mad about Hillary not winning (and every major political player in LA who was a Democrat was in Devner, this city is completely deserted…)

    Maxine Waters is hardcore civil rights black LA and she had Hillary’s back.

    But I can’t name one high profile white feminist who supported Obama or came to his aid when racist attacks started flying.

    Even quite a few black men from the civil right’s era supported Hillary over Obama in the beginning. These are all known facts. I’m surprised that people would even lie to imply otherwise just to make what they are doing seem ok.

  136. browne wrote:

    You know what I think the problem is, most bloggers don’t read. They may read other bloggers that agree with the view that they agree and then they create there on little false reality and they seem to watch alot of TV. The people who wrote that article probably never went to any poc blogs (maybe they went to bossip or something) and the only black woman they saw was Oprah and that’s what they are using to base their entire argument on.

    If these two women are black then they are widely out of touch, if these two women are white then again the same thing applies.

    And whats up with the links that are in there, those are sites put up by white guys. Black woman are now responsible for standing up for (which we totally freakin did) for Hillary and preventing and taking down sites that white men put up? And if we don’t do a good job and make sure we support upper middle class white women with 100% effort then we can’t get irritated when white feminists who are higher in number and more money backed than us don’t support a black woman? The more I reread that article the more annoyed I get.

    I don’t understand what else are we supposed to do. I would like to know. I’ve written topics on the sexism that Hillary faced. I know other women of color who did also, there is only so much we can do.

    We don’t have big publishing houses. We don’t know how to get on TV and talk about it. I’m really perplexed by all of this black women did alot in support of Hillary and that essay is utter bs.

    I tried to google the authors, because I would like to write them directly. If you have the contact info for Gray or Douglas I would really like to discourse with them and find out where they found all of this hate for Hillary within the African-American women community, because I didn’t see it. But if it was there I certainly would like to see it. I certainly would like to know where they pulled these opinions from, because from where I am it looked like they pulled it out of their a**es.

  137. Witchsistah wrote:

    I don’t understand what else are we supposed to do. I would like to know.

    Say finally, “Fuck this and fuck them!” Basically, these White women want to make Black women another brigade in their team of knights, destined to do nothing but save their damsel-in-distressed asses at our expense (and of course, not to expect any quid pro quo).

    And their whole argument is bullshit anyway. And it’s exactly as you’ve laid it out, browne. They basically set up an impossible task for Black women, and when we cannot fulfill it, they call for revenge. They never meant to defend Michelle Obama against jack. They meant all along to sit there and smirk while she suffered racist sexist attacks. This crap is just something they pulled out their asses to justify their petty behavior. This bullshit excuse of no Black women criticizing the sexist media attacks against Hillary is a figleaf and it ain’t doing it’s job very well because it’s covering NOTHING.

  138. merry wrote:

    Browne,

    The two highest profile white women that I can think of who actively supported Obama’s campaign would be Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver. In addition to people like Nancy Pelosi who’s behavior implied that she wasn’t on board with Clinton.

    It’s very true that Clinton has high-profile black women supporters. Maxine Waters is a good example.

    Are the Kennedy’s feminists? I don’t think they’re the go-to women when a pundit wants to talk about feminism. But I bet they think of themselves as feminist, even if its not the first thing out of their mouth when asked to describe themselves.

    I’ve been mulling over this WWS versus WMS question. I don’t think there really is a WMS–that subject position is the dominant one, especially when you add in an upper class element. As such, white males (again, class is a caveat) don’t have internalized oppression that they grapple with. Their behavior is “the norm” or as some people say “the center.” So if you wanted to point out WMS, you’d be pointing out the behavior that we often internalize as the way we should be, in emulation or in their expectations of how we should be…rather than how we actually are. And I might add, there are white males who struggle with this also.

    White women do have an obligation to have a serious anti-racist critique if they want to be considered seriously in terms of anti-oppression work. This means they have to be self-reflective and examine how they leverage their subject positions vis a vis power structures, in a way that people of color can’t. I recognize the WFS when I hear it described, and I can see how its viewed by POC as an act of privilege.

    At the same time, there are plenty of working class white women who know they don’t have the luxury of doing the crying gig to get what they want at work. And I also have empathy if not a lot of patience for the internalized oppression I think the WFS represents. Its often a form of behavior that is used to navigate abusive relationships.

    Its a shame that the white women who in a better universe might be considered movement icons to be referenced in consciousness raising work with these very same WSF’s were highly disappointing on the anti-racist front during the primary campaign. I couldn’t believe it when I read what Gloria Steinem wrote for the NYT. Not because such attitudes aren’t prevalent, but because I would assume that someone who must have been studying, reading, and theorizing all these years about oppression would have an actual clue of some sort.

    Clearly, the feminist movement–if there is one–has a problem. I say this as someone largely on the outside of it–I haven’t paid much attention to all the various waves, and what they mean. I hope it means that internally work is being done to bring an anti-racist ethic into that activist world.

    Browne, I appreciate your comments about staying in the movement because of the people who will come after you. It’s probably hard to stomach running with that crowd sometimes. When I view the white feminist movement it seems inordinately concerned with holding the line on abortion. I actually appreciate this about them, at the same time I don’t like the way it obscures the much larger landscape of the things we need to do for female liberation. What about the women who want to choose to have their babies without living in penury? I wish all that fervor about abortion, on both sides, was directed at creating the conditions in which working women aren’t faced with child-rearing going hand in hand with poverty. And it’s pretty clear to me that women of color have been leaders in shifting the debate in the direction of this broader reproductive justice framework.

    Back to the “white feminists” who everyone keeps talking about, in terms of voting for McCain. I think its an oxymoron–”feminist voting for McCain.” These women really aren’t feminists. They’re kneejerk, unreflective women who can go vote for McCain if they want. I get tired of the constant chasing of these people who are “in the middle.” They obviously don’t know much about Clinton in the first place if they can replace their vote for her with one for Mccain instead of Obama.

  139. browne wrote:

    I know Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver supported Obama, but they aren’t hardlined feminists, they are more humanist. And I want to know which feminist who supported Hillary still spoke out against racism that Obama faced. Women of color even those who supported Obama still mentioned and acknowledged the sexism in regards to Hillary. I didn’t see much of that in reverse, maybe it was there, but I didn’t see it. I saw a lot of woc bending over backwards, but I didn’t see much of the reverse.

  140. Sarah wrote:

    Melissa at Shakesville has long been doing an Obama Racism Watch in addition to her Hilary Clinton Sexism Watch and is now adding a Sarah Palin Sexism Watch despite political disagreements. Most of the white feminist bloggers I read either supported Obama or were agnostic, so I can’t think of anyone else who fits that description offhand. But yes, white feminists who supported HRC are not a monolithic bloc. As for these “feminists” voting for McCain…maybe I’m overly optimistic, but I’ll be more concerned about it when there’s solid data which indicates that this phenomena actually exists on a widespread scale. I think (hope anyway) that women, particularly those who call themselves feminists, will see the transparency of McCain’s VP pick. Palin is far from the most qualified woman VP candidate within her own party.

  141. Celeste wrote:

    Damnit, LaToya! I thought that the reason you ask Witchsista to review the Secret Life of Bees was a good book (I hadn’t seen the rest of the thread that would have made you views clearer) and *not* an example of WWS or at least exposing WWS for what it is . So last night I’m on a airplane reading it and wondering why LaToya would recommend a book where all these black women seem to revolve around the white female character in order to rescue her. I didn’t realize the main character was white until I was a couple chapters in because I just wasn’t expecting it. I’m tempted to not finish it, however since Michelle says it’s worth finishing I try.

  142. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Celeste –

    LOL, my bad girl. I apologize in advance for your continued suffering.

    There have been three books that I got to the middle of, felt too disgusted to finish, and never felt compelled to try them again:

    * Ann Coulter’s Treason.

    (I ALWAYS read counter arguments because it’s the best way to make yours air tight. But that shit was some rubbish, I couldn’t find anything to work with. I can only read rational conservatives.)

    *Ian McEwan’s Atonement

    (He won tons of acclaim and some awards, but to me, reading that was like going through Anne of Green Gables – which is a series I love, btw – but instead of empathizing with the characters you hate them all and want Charlie Sloan to suffocate Anne with a pillow.)

    * Sue Monk Kidd, The Secret Life of Bees

    (I am actually going to do a post on this, because it occurs to me that some people will not know *why* I hated this book so much. And why I absolutely loved To Kill a Mockingbird, even though it had a lot of the same themes/flaws.)

  143. ms four wrote:

    An article from tomorrow’s NY Times Week in Review about women who supported Hillary quoted lots of women, some white and some of color, who are still considering McCain.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/weekinreview/31zernike.html

    There was one really nice part, though:
    “Susie Tompkins-Buell, the Democratic fundraiser who declared herself the “poster child” for the “Hillary holdouts,” announced on Thursday that after her convention conversion she would transform Women Count, the organization she founded to support Mrs. Clinton in the final days of the primaries, into an organization to help protect women like Michelle Obama against misogyny.”

    (Though I’m not sure of the race of Tompkins-Buell.)

  144. Free wrote:

    @Latoya – you know that The Secret Life of Bess is an upcoming movie starring Queen Latifah, Jennifer Hudson, Alicia Keys and Dakota Fanning? Directed by Gina Prince-Bythewood (Love and Basektball).

    Trailer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7dKBEqtzo

  145. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    I’m aware. The casting choices are intriguing.

  146. Free wrote:

    In that Times article, (link at comment 143, ms four) Kate Zernike writes : “This might not be a bad time for Mr. Obama to reconsider that question of retiring Mrs. Clinton’s campaign debt.”

    Why? Should Obama also retire the debts of Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Tom Vilsack? To paraphrase Witchsistah, these women see the Obama’s as their servants, not their equals.

    “To go against Hillary is not easy for us,” Ms. Hackney said. “We don’t take that lightly. We just don’t think he has a message. We don’t think he’s good for women.”

    Oh really? So John McCain, a man who disrespects women is good for women: Chelsea Clinton – ugly; Cynthia McCain – cunt. He also offered Cynthia up to the bikers at the Sturgis rally as an entrant in their bikini beauty pageant. Perhaps McCain is a clueless old man, didn’t know the scene, so he unwittingly recommended his wife for debasement. Now just imagine that reckless mind in the White House: Eight is Enough (really too much).

    John’s offer – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4X6XqNeF1o
    The Pageant – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVQHJd_3J7g&feature=related
    (warning: there’s a crude joke about African banana eaters).

    What about Sarah Palin’s attack on Hillary calling her a whiner? Where is Ms. Hackney’s outrage?
    http://blueweeds.typepad.com/blue_weeds/2008/08/palin-calls-hil.html (Ok, Sarah. Don’t whine when the “sharper microscope” is on you.) At least NOW has come out against her.
    http://www.now.org/press/08-08/08-29.html

    Among her many faults, Palin is a Buchananite (Buchanan Brigader, 1996 campaign – he gave her a shout out). I wonder what Jewish women supporting McCain think about Palin’s support for an anti-Semite. As V.P. she would be in an advisory capacity over the Middle East Peace Process. The National Jewish Democratic Council says no to Gov. Sarah Palin.
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1016554.html

    If a group of Hillary supporters desire to retaliate against the DNC or Emily’s List because those organizations didn’t live up to their expectations that’s their right. But do they have to help push the entire Nation deeper into the abyss as well?

  147. Michelle wrote:

    Just saw the trailer. May the God lord be with us.

    I can’t wait to know why you despised the book so much LaToya.

  148. Will wrote:

    @Free

    Thanks for the links. That was pretty eye opening, talk about a double standard. I’m really sick and tired of so called feminists who would vote McCain over Obama. I just wish they’d be honest and say that they just don’t want to vote for a black man. I’d respect them more that way.

  149. Fatemeh wrote:

    Holy christmas!
    My apologies, but I just got around to reading this. Nadra, great article!

    Something that really jumped out at me was this, D&G’s “Alienating aggrieved white feminists, may well hurt Barack Obama’s chances and, with it, a chance to improve the lives of all women.”

    The first thing that popped into my head was, “What does THAT mean? Are white feminists the ones in charged of improving the lives of all women?” Boo!

  150. Reader83108 wrote:

    Coming late to the party…

    Good piece. Thanks for the qualifying statements. THIS black woman regularly posted comments complaining about the sexism directed at Hillary on well-read websites. I had several conversations with friends, black and white, about the sexism. A lot of the guys didn’t seem to see it, or would claim that they hated the Clintons so much their animus wasn’t motivated by sexism. I begged to differ.

    When after Hillary withdrew Katie Couric made her comment about the problem of too many people tolerating sexism, my thought was, Not me.

  151. Reader83108 wrote:

    And earlier this week I was walking down the street and was accosted twice by Obama supporters who wanted donations. For all I know they thought: Black woman = In the bag.

    I said I was voting for him, but he had to start showing some meaningful respect for women before I was even going to think of reaching into my pocket.

    One of the ironic upsides of the cynical selection of Palin by the Republicans is that if Obama loses, the Democrats can’t put it on Hillary. Oh, they’ll try, but it won’t stick.

  152. Laura wrote:

    This is my response to the soon to be release movie the Secret Life of Bees. I agree with WitchSista about not wanting to see a movie with Black woman being a mammy.

    I went to take my 3 three daughters to see the movie “Longshots” starring KeKe Palmer and Ice Cube. I thought it would be an inspirational movie for my young girls.

    They showed the trailer for the movie “The Secret Life of Bees” To my shock I sat in the movie theater sobbing. Just sobbing I couldn’t not stop it. It had to come down. My 7 year old daughter ask me what was the matter. I told her nothing .

    I just could not take it. I took my daughters to see a movie that show them that they can think outside the box as black girls they don’t have to be what society wants them to be (Oh yes Longshot has it’s flaws) But what did I see in before the start of the film, the preview for a mammy propaganda/training movie. I am tired, just tired of the daily assaults on me and my daughters psyche. I sobbed because it so tiring. The constant being on guard it is so tiring.

  153. SuzyQ wrote:

    I like Michell Obama and I’m a white feminist. One who was for Hillary.

    I actually thought she spoke some heavy truth when she said what she said about finally feeling proud for America.

    I haven’t felt this proud since that scum bag Reagan came to power. I think some of Obama’s followers crossed the line with Hillary but neither of the Obamas ever did. Nor do I think Hillary Clinton really crossed the line.

    What they did was fight hard, then chilled then came together for party unity and the goal of taking the White House back from the Republi-Nazis.

    Much of the he say/she say was really right wing media say.

  154. AP wrote:

    The first poll results are out since McCain selected Palin as his running mate, and at least initially, he has gained a 5% bump among men, but dropped 5% among women, and initial focus groups show that Palin makes women less likely to vote for him.

    I am not trying to rush to the defense of white women, but I am concerned that when we buy into media stereotypes about what white women are doing, we misunderstand the election as it is happening. Sarah Palin has immense appeal among white men. The only women who this has helped with are the far-right that this pick was designed to solidify (who generally do not identify as feminist). There have been a lot of suggestions on this thread that this pick will cause ignorant white feminists to tip the election to McCain. This data at least suggest otherwise, and I hope that we can see through the media hype and not blame white feminists if white men vote as they always have and give this election to McCain.

  155. Anonymous wrote:

    @SuzyQ
    “I think some of Obama’s followers crossed the line with Hillary but the Obama’s never did. And neither did Hillary”. Ok, now when Obama’s foreign policy advisor (a woman) called Hillary a monster in an interview which took place in a foreign country and which she thought was off the record (she is a college prof not used to the media) she was immediately ousted, I suppose you could call that sexist, though there are many other politicians who that accusations could fairly be thrown at. So that is 1 prominent Obama supporter who that accusation might fly. What about Hillary’s people, specifically Gloria Steinam and Geraldine Ferraro and her own husband? But you don’t think she crossed the line with her “hard working Americans…hard working white Americans” crack? Gimmie a break. Because only white people work hard and the rest of us are either just genetically gifted (Asians who are just too smart naturally) or us blacks who are lazy and siftless, often criminal or just affirmative action recipients who then continue to be lazy and get things handed to us for no reason, the same applies to Hispanics\Latinos who to top it off come here to live the easy life, steal jobs from said hard working white Americans, don’t pay taxes and then live off the system and use up the hwwa’s tax money (and don’t even think about the forgotten people who were here first). You know, or at least most of us non-hard working non hard working (dare I say non Americans no matter what our birth certificates and passports say) that exactly what she meant and the type of mind set of people she was talking to. She only let Ferraro go after a shit storm of pissed off people made her do it, wheras the monster comment lady(can’t remember her name) gone in a minute. Never crossed the line, she crossed a huge line I seriously thought of backing her, thank God I changed my mind. Barak and his major and prominent supporters have never done anything even in the ballpark of being as sexist as her campign was racist, and if you or others can’t see that, well I don’t know what to say

  156. Celeste wrote:

    Sorry, can’t finish the book. Too much mammy for me. Now I’m reading a book on how to say “no” to your toddler. I don’t have kids yet but it’s never too early ;)

  157. Lisa wrote:

    I’m glad to hear that, AP. I really scoff at the Republicans’ assumption that we white feminists are such a batch of bimbos.

    Palin is a Randall Terry type pander to the right-wing, and a self-loathing collaborator in oppressing her own.

  158. Lisa J wrote:

    Sorry, that last anon was me. I was writing from my blackberry, not work or home, like usual, and seem to have left a name line out.

  159. SuzyQ wrote:

    Anonymous wrote:
    A bunch of BS aimed at splitting the party and hid behind anonymous.
    Hillary and Barack both fought hard for the nomination.
    Afterward they reconciled. Now they are united to fight to take back the country. There were morons in both camps.
    I will not let the morons keep me from taking the country back from the Republi-Nazis.

    Regarding white working class… Many white working class poor have their needs neglected anything that helps bring them into seeing they share the same concerns as the working poor who are people of color is a good thing as they haven’t any self serving interests to be Republican

  160. Michelle wrote:

    You all did hear that Palin’s 17 year old daughter is pregnant, and that she will be marrying the baby’s father soon.

    I don’t think that ignorant and feminist is an oxymoron. At least the way we mean ignorant. I just can’t see some woman who calls herself a feminist giving up Roe v Wade. Giving up reproductive health. And giving it up to Palin. I can see women who are ignorant, but there is no way that Gloria or Geraldine are going to vote for a right wing creationist anti-abortion woman. No way, no how, no Palin.

    On the other hand, all those ignorant people in the heartland who won’t vote for a negro, they just can’t wait to get Palin in office.

  161. Princess wrote:

    Obiviously, opinions vary drastically concerning what it means to be a “feminist”. Likewise, “experience”, as it pertains to qualifying for high level positions in goverment is arguably subjective as well.

    In my opinion, reactions to race and gender diversity throughout this election have been interesting and infuriating. As a WOC I cannot agree that the negativity that has transpired during this election process can be explained away by sexism as the key factor.

    There are several very thick layers of the “glass ceiling”, and this is why I cringed after hearing repeatedly, “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling”. Somehow, I knew there would be a negative spin on this, ultimately outright exploitation. A very transparent ploy.

  162. Lisa J wrote:

    @SuzyQ. BS??? BS??? Trying to divide the party? Um, I said I had to think long and hard about who to pick for one, and second it was Hillary who was trying to divide the party by bringing up racist rap for no reason. I didn’t hide behind anonymous, if you saw the next post you’d see that, I sent from my blackberry and must have missed the name line. I am not attempting to split the party, I really don’t think you’ve been reading this site long or have really gotten the work that is done here if you don’t see that the “hard working white Amerian” line was straight out hard core racism speaking in code towards racist whites. I also never said that both sides didn’t stick their elbows out, but only calling Obama’s people on it and then saying Hillary didn’t do anything bad at all is the BS. If the”hard working white Amerians” have had their needs ignored and have been screwed by the white power structure, it is because they have largely supported that power structure contrary to their own best interested based primarily on ideas of white supremacy so they’ve gotten all they deserve to date for doing that. And making a crack like that only served to undersore racism and play to it. By that line, she meant to say that whites were hard working and no one else was nugde nugde wink wink pure and simple. Oh and by the way, this is the internet so you don’t know me so whether I put in the name anomoymous (which I didn’t intentionally do, I must have left the name line blank without realizin it) made up a cute name (like naming myself afer a song) or use my real name and inital, which is what I do, you wouldn’t know who I was so where do you get off calling someone on that and saying they are hiding? How do you hide when no one knows who you are?

  163. Rchoudh wrote:

    Historically the white Western woman was always epitomized as representing the “ideal woman” to which all other non-Western non-white women were to strive towards emulating. In the past the capitalistic/colonialist white male patriarchal establishment represented this “ideal woman” as being a Christian with good moral values who was also a doting mother and housewife.

    Today white Western femininity is still upheld by the same establishment as being the ideal woman. The only thing that’s changed is that white feminists have been able to alter the past description of the “ideal woman” to mean someone economically and sexually independent who was also perfect at childrearing and at maintaining the household.

    Now along comes a WOC who fits well the “ideal woman” description to the T. Now some white feminists feel threatened by this because of the fear that white women will no longer be serving strictly as the epitome of femininity.

  164. texascowgirl wrote:

    I think the bottom line is that this election brought out a lot of latent racism that these so-called white “feminists” didn’t know they had. That’s way the feminist movement has always historically held WoC at such a distance. We brough the issue of racism with us and white women did not want to be confronted with the role that they played in oppresing people of color. It’s the same reason why many black folks don’t want anything to do with our gay brothers and sisters and their plight. If you want to make a room full of black folks angry, compare the struggle for gays to the struggle for black. It’s hard to wage a fight for “equality for all” when your own prejudice is staring you in the face in the form of people who you do not see or treat as equal.

    Many of those white women saw the privilege that came with their whiteness slipping away and didn’t like it one bit. Many white women espected to see a woman president whereas few black folks thought they would ever see a black one. Obama surprised us too. Some Hillary supporters felt like they were being moved from second place as a black man and his wife shot from third and fourh to first. That crazy old bad Harriete Christian chick said as much at the RBC meeting after the primaries. Funny enough I think Hillary is handling it better than they are.

  165. DiosaNegra1967 wrote:

    *gets up and stands shoulder to shoulder with WitchSistah and Free*

    …there IS strength in numbers y’all…

    @ WitchSistah: i, too, have sought out therapy as a way to deal with the “effects” of being a Black woman….

    as for “the secret life of bees”….i read the book a few years ago…it was interesting, but the whole “mammy” thing p*ssed me off, majorly!

    how FITTING that this movie is to be released NOW???

    and, don’t get me started on “tropic thunder”…

  166. John wrote:

    “the silence from black women in the face of those attacks”

    What does that mean??? Which black women? Considering the minimal representation black females get in the American media, what are they surprised about? Also, who counts as “black women” to them? What do they imagine and what do they want?

  167. Celeste wrote:

    Just wondering? Is there an inverse to “Secret Life of Bees?”. By that I mean, does anyone know of a book where a bunch of white women tell all their secrets of white womanhood to save a neglected black girl and allow said black girl to appropriate their culture all the while having a romantic relationship with one of the “good” white men. If such a book exists then I will end my boycott on the 2nd half of SLB.

  168. Anonymous wrote:

    I’m sorry; but white women can be just as racist as their fathers. And all this empty talk proves it.
    If Michelle Obama is not a case of feminism working then I don’t know what is. America is just not used to seeing a black man in a position of power and its usually those woman who need a d*ck that have a problem with woman like Michelle. I like to talk plain.
    She supports her man and she doesn’t need white women to rally behind her as if she’s running for office! If you really care about the bigger picture white women then get over the fact that Hilary lost. She played the game (a dirty game at that) and lost fair and square. I’m tired of reading about all of these smokescreens and mirror diversions.

  169. Anonymous wrote:

    The bottom line is…What are white women going to do? Vote for Palin? A woman who wants to make sure that feminism progress is set back 200 years and is the female equivalent of Justice Clarence Thomas?

  170. Anonymous wrote:

    And really…what kind and what brand of feminism are we talking about here? White feminism is different from black feminism; just like gay/lesbian issues are different from being black and gay/lesbian.

  171. Michelle wrote:

    Regarding SLB,

    The only reason that I thought book was good was because I felt like the Black women were fully fleshed out and had an arc of their own. And let’s face it, I had a grandmother that would take in anybody and everybody. And no, I have not experienced any elderly White women who are “everybody’s” grandmama. But, I did feel that the impact of racism as a possible cause of mental dis-ease was dealt with humanely and quite beautifully in the book.

    However, when Dakota Fanning gets on that screen and acts all those Black women under the table, then we will have a whole ‘nother issue on our hands.

  172. Z wrote:

    Their whole opinion for not supporting Michelle is the biggest crock of BS I’ve ever heard

  173. abw wrote:

    I feel that Obama’s campaign had its share of sexism and Hillary’s campaign had it’s share of racism.

    With that said, I also feel,like Celeste, that this has been more about personalities instead of policy.

    Which is why I personally took to Cynthia McKinney- despite the fact that she probably wasn’t even really in the running in comparison to Barack or Clinton.With that said ,despite all this, these smear campaigns against Obama have worked my nerves, it has been one after the other. I say that because there have been times I have had slightly,albeit very, slightly more respect for Hillary than Obama(THOUGH I WOULDN”T HAVE VOTED FOR HER EITHER BECAUSE I DO NOT THINK HER POLICIES WERE MUCH MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN OBAMA) yet it was not even lost by me that people never seem to have any limit as to how low they could stoop to show up Obama. I wasn’t impressed with the smear job done on Hillary,either, and I am not even sure it was always less, but THEY BLATANTLY threw in everything but the kitchen sink on smearing Obama-or at least they did it in a much uglier/nastier tone.I think THAT is what it is! They did not hide with Hillary or hold out too much but they made a point to diss Obama with no attempt to even give the impression they would cut him some slack by just laying off. Which tells me, if I or ANYBODY who agree that slander of Obama reached a new low, when I or we did not support Obama, sees a problem with the way things were done, supporters or at least critics of Obama slanderers got a point!One more thing though,like others have probably, If Hillary supporters *were* so feminist, why support McCain-a male-and one that you know supports Republican candidates-candidates who are not too keen on support women/feminist issues. If you just felt a need to support a woman-why not Cynthia McKinney, after all, she’s a woman. The catch may be that she is a black woman. So much for enlightened feminism. Not that I am letting Obama’s group/supporters completely off the hook for sexism because that was a weak point. But even here, I am almost sure if some of Obama’s supporters defected from him, I am not too sure McCain would have been the second pick!

  174. abw wrote:

    I did not watch this election through and through, but from what I saw-this was just ***MY**** humble admittedly impression-and I say this with all seriousness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  175. Sue PREME wrote:

    Out of 300 million people in the US and this is the four best people they could come up with? WOW!!! There are certain aspects of this Palin woman I like, but I will not support a woman who is pro – life. I feel the use of abortion should not be abused, but it should be available if a woman needs to utilize it. And as far as Obama goes, I think he’ll be a do nothing president. I’m voting Independent people!

  176. Ange wrote:

    I had to quickly scan the comments to avoid the whining white feminists who would come here seeking a pat on the back and a cookie.

    It’s not always about you.

  177. voiceofreason wrote:

    I think there is a sneaky side to white woman’s feminism, which actually hides behind its agenda of racism by status-quo phrases like “The society is racist in general hence white women are” or emotional ones like “Black sisters”. The reason why such statements are successful is that black women are too ready to forget and forgive whereas white women are not. Actually if one looks at the goals behind feminism it is about gaining a better foothold on resources and privilege, then why can’t one suspect white women to do it via racism, the system which is already in place, instead of feminism which is a tougher path to tread. Why should white women be given a benefit of doubt that blacks – men and women- in general aren’t. Also the obvious defense to this line of argument is that the society should remain united. By cooperating with racist institutions AND racist white feminists, more damage has occurred to the black community than anyone else . The best solution for a black woman who wants change, therefore, is to shun both racism and white feminism and to fight separately for BOTH black feminism and black society in general. I think sugar coated phrases like “unity” and “solidarity” are crap if it means nothing and no gains to one of the parties in a coalition ie black women. If more and more black women acted and thought like Michelle Obama, blacks would have uplifted their community long time back. If blacks have to progress, blacks, and black women in general, should leave behind two things, pity towards anyone who seems to support their cause – doing so simply pushes their cause backwards- and fear towards mainstream society. As they realize that they are a highly disadvantaged group, from a society’s racial standpoint, they should fighting their own battle, which will bring up the black community first and benefit the society more and not the gender battle which they are not in a position to fight.