Which Womanhood?

I wish I felt what Robin Morgan feels. "Our President Ourselves!" she cheers, in a rousing pitch for Hillary Clinton. "We need to rise in furious energy – as we did when courageous Anita Hill was so vilely treated in the US Senate, as we did when desperate Rosie Jimenez was butchered by an illegal abortion, as we did and do for women globally who are condemned for trying to break through."

Morgan asks, "Why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans women and men are justly proud of their struggles?"

I wish I felt her poet's passion for Clinton as a player in the global women's movement, but I don't. Indeed, I'm reminded that there are parts to be proud of in this movement of ours, and less attractive parts, of which Hillary Clinton, I'm sad to say, constantly reminds me.

Morgan recalls how Clinton defied the US State Department and the Chinese Government to speak at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women. I saw Hillary Clinton speak that rainy day in China and her defiance was something of which to be rightly proud. But even as Clinton called for the recognition of women's rights as human rights, the rigged-for-profit trade policies that she supported then and continues to endorse were encouraging a global sweatshop economy that has all but eradicated the right to unionize in most of the world -- a working woman's best protector. (It took her six years to get off the board of the anti-union giant Wal-Mart.)

"For too long the history of women has been a history of silence," Clinton told the World Conference then. But almost exactly a year later, she supported her husband's signing of the so-called Personal Responsibility Act, which successfully shifted responsibility for poverty in an affluent society off that society and onto the backs of poor mothers. Those moms barely got to say a word, while DC pols slandered and steamrollered them.

Clinton writes in her autobiography "Living History" that she would have opposed her husband over welfare reform if she thought it would hurt young children. (One wonders what she thinks happens to kids in poor working and over-working families.) On the campaign trail, she recalls her dedication to Marian Wright Edelman's Children's Defense Fund. But I can't forget Peter Edelman's resignation from the Department of Health and Human Services in protest. In 1996, welfare "reform" cut almost 800,000 legal immigrants off aid entirely and even denied them food stamps, but no one denies that it helped get Bill Clinton re-elected. "Welfare reform became a success for Bill" writes Hillary in "Living History." It was all about politics, not poor people, said Edelman.

And that's the saddening, shaming part of Clinton's record – and the part that reminds me just how often white middle class women have advanced our own fortunes at the expense of other women.

There is a heterogeneous, global, diverse women's movement that has indeed raised women out of servitude and fought – and fought again – for reproductive, economic and social/sexual self-determination as a human right.

But there is also a history of some "womanhood" advancing apart, when the "we" of womanhood became too burdensome. In 1976, when the Hyde Amendment banned most public funding for poor women's abortions, too few of us rose up - but some of us rose in society thanks to obtaining abortions anyway. Today Senator Clinton calls abortion "tragic" and looks for "common ground" with choice's enemies. Later, when every-woman's ERA failed, most of today's politicians moved on. And then, as the "war on drugs" advanced, most female lawyers (including Clinton) carried on rising up, even as thousands of disproportionately poor and drug-addicted women were sent down. Women – as a whole – didn't do much at all, when, in the name of "defending marriage," our government (under President Clinton) banned some women's marriages.

I'd like to believe a female president would be good for the advancement of "womanhood" worldwide. But so far Senator Clinton's votes have not been good for Iraqi, or Palestinian, or a whole lot of global womanhood. One million dead in Iraq alone. (US forces killed another nine civilians including a child today.) At what cost does one woman prove she's ready for the White House?

The fact is, I'm ready for leadership that means "we" now, not sometime when the wars on "terror" or "drugs" or the "vast right-wing conspiracy" are over. (Or when there's a budget surplus, or a woman in the White House, or maybe after she's won re-election.) And so me and my womanhood are rooting for a movement that might someday build for structural change -- and that kind of leadership. Today, with fingers crossed, I'm voting for Barack (and Michelle) Obama. At least we can call their community organizers' bluff. Or we can go down -- or rise up -- trying.

Comments (27)

1. LAURA

   I'm certainly not one to be cheering for Hillary Clinton's victory. Personally I think she's a vicious elitist who doesn't give a damn about any group except in the context of how they could help her achieve power. Add to that little understanding of economics.

   However, I also think what you're seeing is not betrayal but the development of an ability to look at the bigger picture. However misguided I consider her world view to be, its better than small time local thinking designed to satisfy only one groups' alleged oppression.

   Your article denotes a battle thats' already won, Laura, except for those who can find no other purpose than to keep fighting. Move on.

   Chip

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/05/2008 @ 09:21am

2. enjoy your vote, ms. flanders. you've earned it.

   thank you.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 09:23am

3. "I'm voting for Barack and Michelle Obama."

   Ms Flanders, despite flinging off the obvious con job of "A feminist vote is a vote for Hillary"...your group think does no good to your argument.

   Michelle Obama ...is NOT on the ballot. Senator Barack Obama, her husband, is. And Mrs Obama has made NO declarations of being a "co-President" if the Senator is elected.

   Give up the gender argument and just stick with the issues. You are almost there. You support Obama because you don't like Hillary Clinton on the issues...period.

   The fact that one has a penis and one a vagina and breasts is meaningless....pro or con.

   Posted by Mask at 02/05/2008 @ 09:26am

4. The fact that one has a penis and one a vagina and breasts is meaningless....pro or con.

   Posted by MASK 02/05/2008 @ 09:26am

   have you checked?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 09:48am

5. enjoy your vote, ms. flanders. you've earned it.

   thank you.

   ~Frosty Zoom @ 09:23am

   Funny, I think Katha Pollitt may yet have much to do to "earn" her voting rights. Her explicit support for Hillary Clinton, despite the overloaded freight train of reeking baggage that so ominously trails her wherever she goes, represents a flying leap into the primeval past.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/05/2008 @ 10:33am

6. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/05/2008 @ 09:48am

   I'm pretty sure Senator Obama is male.

   I'll leave it at that.

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 02/05/2008 @ 10:43am

7. S. 677 [109th]: Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2005

   A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in employment, and for other purposes.

   Sponsor: Sen. Richard Santorum [R-PA]

   Cosponsors [as of 2007-01-08]

   Sen. Samuel Brownback [R-KS]

   Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY] <<<<<<<<

   Sen. Thomas Coburn [R-OK]

   Sen. Thad Cochran [R-MS]

   Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN]

   Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX]

   Sen. Jon Corzine [D-NJ]

   Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC]

   Sen. John Ensign [R-NV]

   Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT]

   Sen. John Kerry [D-MA]

   Sen. Joseph Lieberman [D-CT]

   Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY]

   Sen. Gordon Smith [R-OR]

   Sen. James Talent [R-MO]

   scenarios below from http://www.thejesusmyth.com/the-workplace-religious-freedom-act.htm

   The Workplace Religious Freedom Act

   April 14, 2007

   ...

   A woman has just been raped. As she lies there in a heap, sobbing to herself and wondering how she will make it through this horrid ordeal, a thought passes through her mind. "What if I get pregnant?" A valid concern. Knowing that she doesn't think that she could carry the child and raise it without being reminded on a daily basis that she was brutalized, she decides to consult her physician. The options are laid out before her. She decides, reluctantly, to do what she feels is the right thing. She takes the prescription that her doctor gave her to the pharmacist only to be turned away without getting it filled. Why? It was a prescription for the Morning After pill. The pharmacist is a Christian with pro-life views.

   ...

   The bill also seriously jeopardizes the wellbeing of American citizens. The broad language of the bill compromises health and safety by allowing healthcare workers to refuse to provide information and services related to family planning and HIV/AIDS treatment. Under the bill, police officers could also refuse to protect buildings if they had a moral objection to the tenant's activities–putting people like abortion clinic workers at risk.

   ...

   Posted by trippin at 02/05/2008 @ 11:34am

8. She takes the prescription that her doctor gave her to the pharmacist only to be turned away without getting it filled. Why? It was a prescription for the Morning After pill. The pharmacist is a Christian with pro-life views.

   Posted by TRIPPIN 02/05/2008 @ 11:34am

   To make it even worse, I have heard that in some cases the pharmacist has refused to return the prescription, preventing her form taking it elsewhere.

   Posted by jaded at 02/05/2008 @ 11:56am

9. B_Kool_66 wrote that "Funny, I think Katha Pollitt may yet have much to do to "earn" her voting rights. Her explicit support for Hillary Clinton, despite the overloaded freight train of reeking baggage that so ominously trails her wherever she goes, represents a flying leap into the primeval past."

   B Kool 66 is wrong. Katha Pollitt wrote, in a blog, "[b]ut right now, I'm supporting Barack Obama." Katha Pollitt is not supporting Hillary Clinton.

   Nick Soter

   Posted by nicksoter at 02/05/2008 @ 12:46pm

10. The bottom line about the Clintons is that they will always be about the Clintons and will sell-out whoever they have to to attain, hold onto and wield power. If that means selling out working people, women and others- then so be it. The 'Third Way' is nothing more than a moniker for selling out- signing a pact with the Devil.

    Posted by NoPCZone at 02/05/2008 @ 12:59pm

11. B Kool 66 is wrong. Katha Pollitt wrote, in a blog, "[b]ut right now, I'm supporting Barack Obama." Katha Pollitt is not supporting Hillary Clinton.

    ~Nick Soter @ 12:46pm

    Nick,

    Read the Pollitt post closely. The opening line is:

    Hillary Clinton is smart, energetic, immensely knowledgeable, and, as she likes to say, hard-working. I've been appalled by the misogynous vitriol (and mean-girl snark) aimed against her. If she is the nominee I will work my heart out for her.

    In other words, "If it wasn't for that charisamatic anti-war Obama guy, I'd be full-bore for Hillary" --my paraphrasing of Katha.

    I find it astounding that anyone worthy of the name, progresssive, could find it in themselves to support such a regressive candidate for the presidency.

    But we all must admit that we are strange creatures, we Homo sapiens.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/05/2008 @ 3:06pm

12. In other words, "If it wasn't for that charisamatic anti-war Obama guy, I'd be full-bore for Hillary" --my paraphrasing of Katha.----Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/05/2008 @ 3:06pm

    Well,that's a keeper.

    After all the times B_KOOL has jumped on MY case for "misinterpreting what others say and twisting it to what he thinks they say"!

    Thanks B_!

    Posted by Mask at 02/05/2008 @ 3:24pm

13. What part of, "If she is the nominee I will work my heart out for her" do you not understand, Maskot?

    It's a simple point I made with little fanfare. Katha loves Hillary and any progressive should wonder why.

    I think it illustrates how even apparently very intelligent people (Katha in this case) can be so completely blind to loudly blaring, garishly colored facts --Hillary's badly pockmarked past.

    Fascinating.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/05/2008 @ 3:49pm

14. "Katha loves Hillary"----Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/05/2008 @ 3:49pm

    B_KOOL, if the Democratic nominee was Ron Paul...and the GOP nominee was saying he would "stay in Iraq for 100 years"...

    and Katha Pollitt said she would "work her heart out for Ron Paul if he's the nominee"....

    would that calculate to "Katha Pollitt loves Ron Paul"?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 02/05/2008 @ 4:04pm

15. Don't be so dull, Maskot.

    You're at The Nation's website pretty much every freakin' day. You know how Katha views Hillary --with admiration and respect, if not flat out love.

    It doesn't take a psychological genius to infer that pledging to "work your heart out" for a candidate is making a strongly emotional statement of affinity, if not love.

    Sheeesh.

    Next I expect you to argue over what the definition of "is" is.

    Give it a rest, Maskot. Stop chasing after tailpipes and go after something more appropriate --like Hillary's tail.

    ;-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/05/2008 @ 4:26pm

16. You're at The Nation's website pretty much every freakin' day. You know how Katha views Hillary --with admiration and respect, if not flat out love.----Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/05/2008 @ 4:26pm

    Katha Pollitt has declared her "love" of Hillary Clinton?!?!?!

    Care to QUOTE her saying that? Or is it a "MASKian interpretation"?!?!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 02/05/2008 @ 4:48pm

17. Here's what I said that set you off, "If it wasn't for that charismatic anti-war Obama guy, I'd be full-bore for Hillary" --my paraphrasing of Katha.

    I stand by it. Nothing Maskot-like about it.

    Now drop the rawhide and wipe up your slobber.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/05/2008 @ 5:04pm

18. Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, Barack Obama voted against the Iraq war. Clinton voted for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment declaring the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps terrorist, Obama didn't vote saying he was busy campaigning. The Lieberman-Kyl amendment gives Bush full authority to declare war on Iran. This is because after 9-11 congress handed over its constitutional authority to the president as long as he claims he's acting against terrorism. We already had covert action against Iran & we just saw a precursor "Gulf of Tonkin" type of incident early this year. Gulf of Tonkin incident started the Vietnam War & was a made up event, like WMD. My fear is once the most pro-war candidates of both parties are elected, Bush will find an excuse to bomb Iran. If we bomb Iran, Iran will shut down the Strait of Hormuz cutting off 40% of the worlds exported oil. This will be a financial disaster, possibly triggering a depression. U.S. casualties in Iraq will approach Vietnam War rates. The any U.S. ground troops in Iran will be doomed. Kucinich & Paul have no or little chance; Obama is best hope for peace.

    Posted by R We Doomed at 02/06/2008 @ 04:20am

19. SWIFT BOATING 2008

    Since 1972, Democrats have been very good at nominating their worst candidate and surest loser for the general election! The list is memorable: George McGovern in 1972 with Republican dirty tricks on Ed Muskie helping, Michael Dukakis in 1988, John Kerry in 2004. Well, it's time for another debacle and general election that only the Democrats could lose!

    The Republicans have already smeared and slimed Hillary Clinton for 16 years. She is "swift boat" proof! However, NOT SO for Barack Hussein Obama; it's clear that the Republicans can smear him with their standard weapon of fear so bad that lofty words and debate will be meaningless. Osama will be lucky to get 35% of the vote in the general election.

    Posted by JohnQCitizen at 02/06/2008 @ 08:22am

20. Well said, Laura.

    Though I was quite impressed with Robin Morgan's essay. I thought it was the most convincing case I've seen for Hillary. Still, it was nice for you to bring some inconvenient facts about how Hillary's neoliberal tendencies affect lower-income women and women of color. By aligning herself with corporate interests, she works to the disadvantage of women, who disproportionately comprise the bottom of the economic latter, and who are the most vulnerable.

    Of all the candidates, my first choice was Dennis Kucinich, but he dropped out of the race. Stuck with the choice between Clinton and Obama, I voted for Obama. I do have misgivings about Obama, particularly his bellicose rhetoric on Iran and Pakistan. His policies regarding Palestine/Israel are just as dreadful as Hillary's. (Though he wasn't always like this, read this article [electronicintifada.net] on his repositioning.) But he was against the Iraq invasion from the beginning, and in contrast, Hillary still has not admitted she made a mistake in authorizing Bush the powers to let loose this war.

    Posted by downwarddog at 02/06/2008 @ 9:30pm

21. Ms Fisher, http://www.mercurynews.com/pattyfisher/ci_8180160?nclick_check=1

    I wanted to thank you for the courage and integrity that it took to vote for Obama over Hillary. In return as a 49 year old white angry progressive male I promise I will vote for the first women to run ... all things being equal ... even If I don't agree with her on all the issues. Your dilemma of who to vote for as a women is one probably shared by many women (and will be in the coming weeks), and so your ability to rise above an important, but more narrower interest, is not only a testament to the appeal of Obama's message, but a testament to your qualities, as well as the qualities of the other women who support him .... Thank you all.

    In the Hillary/ Obama match up, my take is that for Obama it is more about all of us ... not just him, and for Hillary it is too much about her (and the dead weight she has on her ring finger). Were Hillary to make it into the White House they would bring all the pain of their synergy back into the mix. I am not interested in 4 more years of national therapy for Hillary and Bill. I wish them well (and lots of help), but I am sorry ... not on my dime this time. Despite whatever good intentions she might have (and I have a lot of questions about that), I believe her presidency would be a failed one or at best just slow down slightly the disintegration and rot that has been eating away at our political culture for what seems like forever.

    This is a transformative moment and Obama is very much a work in progress. Right now we have to ask ourselves does he have the skill set, qualities and openness to move the project called America forward... I believe that he has proved that he does. So we support him and in doing so support ourselves. Then, when and if he is elected, we go back to our focused issues pushing this "work in progress" to consider and adopt some of our concerns ... but I believe that we will not need to do so in such a narrow or defensive way with a Obama administration. My reading is that Obama wouldn't have it any other way.

    So get ready to push for more females in influential positions in an Obama administration and I will get ready to push for Kucinich to be put in charge of the new Department of Peace (a guy can dream can't he?) and who knows ... Obama may turn out to be our first female President .... In a Toni Morrison kind of way.

    Good luck to us all

    David Engstrom Owner Cider Press Publishing LLC

    P.S. If you have not seen an interview or talk by Michelle Obama I urge you to do so. She is perhaps even more impressive than her husband. Her influence will be strongly felt in any Obama Administration http://women.barackobama.com/page/content/WFOhome

    Posted by dmengstrom at 02/06/2008 @ 9:46pm

22. Thank you for this article reminding us that "women" are not simply white middle class women. Having seen Obama at the Hartford CT rally on Monday, the crowd of 17,000 was truly mixed - seniors and teens, black, white, Asian, and Latino, men and women. I have been very struck by the demographic blindness of the characterization that "women are for Hillary" and "white and black men are for Obama," as it doesn't capture Obama's large support among black women and women of color. As a wise woman said - "if all the women are white, all the blacks are men, some of us are brave!"

    Posted by lmlowe at 02/07/2008 @ 08:40am

23. Barack Obama voted against the Iraq war.

    no, he didn't. you are doomed if you don't know the facts.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/07/2008 @ 11:31am

24. To make it even worse, I have heard that in some cases the pharmacist has refused to return the prescription, preventing her form taking it elsewhere.

    Posted by JADED 02/05/2008 @ 11:56am | ignore this person

    I would call a cop.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/07/2008 @ 11:35am

25. I like what Bill Maher said about Hillary. To paraphrase: If you hate Hillary, that tells me a lot more about yourself than Hillary. She's not polarizing, she's a middle of the road democrat. There's nothing wrong with Hillary. Maher stated that based on Ralph Nader's article, Obama might be a better choice than Hillary because of her corporate ties, but Obama's got them too. I also agree with Cornell West who claims: If you're going to vote for Obama than hold him accountable. Michelle Obama referred to the left communities'wish to hold him accountable when she stated, "Hold us accountable, we want you too." Mask and all the other Hillary haters are expressing a deep hatred for Hillary because they are sheeple, (sheep + people)they follow the conservative mainstream media instead of thinking for themselves. They don't love Obama, they just hate the women with power- ie Hillary Clinton. Except those women who hate women like Ann Coulter. They rail against katha Pollit and others in a pathetic attempt to shut down the female perspectives which for some reason(perhaps a small penis) they find threatening. Many women have jumped on the bandwagon of hating HIllary Clinton as well. Ask them why and they like many men mimick the conservative media. The people who support Obama because they believe Obama will be a good president do not need to attack Hillary by using sexist, homophobic rhetoric. It would be nice if they focused on the positives about Obama, but alas their self hatred is projected onto women of power who threaten their being somehow. How sad. I am shocked that these bozos support Obama. Obama does not come off like a feminist hater or homophobic like these posters. I suspect that these nuts are Rush Limbaugh fans and really don't believe in Obama's or Hillary's message. I agree about Hillary's corporate ties, but John Edwards pointed out Obama's drug company money long ago. It does not matter if he does not take lobbyist or PAC money. Edwards pointed out Obama's corporate ties and all the pundits know about them too. Face up to it people, if you really wanted a CHANGE you should have voted for Kucinch or at least Edwards. Obama is not the liberal/progressive you think he is. I wish he were as liberal as at least George Mcgovern, unlike the Rush Limbaugh crowd (all the anti-hillary posters on this site) who could care less about democratic ideals. And by the way, a vote for Obama is a vote for Michelle Obama. Anyone who doesn't believe in the influence of the first lady is ignorant of how the political system works.

    Posted by apple123 at 02/07/2008 @ 2:36pm

26. Isn't this the description of a politician?

    QUOTE:

    "The bottom line about the Clintons is that they will always be about the Clintons and will sell-out whoever they have to to attain, hold onto and wield power. If that means selling out working people, women and others- then so be it. The 'Third Way' is nothing more than a moniker for selling out- signing a pact with the Devil." Posted by NOPCZONE 02/05/2008 @ 12:59pm

    Corey 2-8-08 CoreyMondello.com [CoreyMondello.com]

    Posted by coreypaul at 02/08/2008 @ 06:41am

27. Laura: I believe you made your point quite clearly - that a dedication to "human rights" is a more reliable indicator of what an elected official would actually do in support of women's rights. And that acting on behalf of women's (and/or children's) rights is not necessarily more likely just because that individual happens to be a woman.

    I too support Barack Obama. I believe that he is the candidate most likely to act on behalf of human rights - here at home and across the world. I may be a cynic, but Clinton's support of NAFTA leaves me with serious doubts that she is willing to make the tough calls on behalf of social justice versus political expediency.

    Posted by swkidder at 02/08/2008 @ 11:09am