You know when I look at Obama's position on issues, I would call him a feminist. I would call Clinton a feminist.

I wish we would stop pitting feminists against each other based on if they're voting for the female presidential canidate.

I'd be happy to have Obama or Clinton as my president.

Stop this madness!

I don't get it? I rather liked her essay, in particular that part.

I think a lot of the distaste for Clinton comes from exactly what she was describing - young women who want to identify with men, show they aren't threatening, etc.

I don't know why feministing is always trying to pit old feminists against younger ones.

The above section of Morgan's essay is incredibly condescending. It completely fails to recognize that there are a variety of valid reasons younger women might decide to support Obama.

That's why she says, "some". She does not claim that this is the case for all or even most and so in no way "fails to recognize the variety of valid reasons".

MirandaJay, Robin Morgan is pitting older feminists against younger feminists throughout that entire essay (not just in that section). It is absolutely so offensive for her to assume that women who vote for Obama are buying into the sexist bullshit against Clinton, voting for their bfs, to gain post feminist points, or whatever the fuck else Robin Morgan seems to imagine young women are weak/dumb/misguided enough to do. This isn't feministing pitting young feminists against old. The above portion of the essay does just that. By Morgan's own ridiculous logic, voting for Clinton would be some post-civil-rights belief that "whooosh" racism is over. Doesn't she have a problem with that? Her argument is not only absurd, but offensive.

Thank You, Ann.

Isn't the whole point of this feminism deal that we reject the boxes that many wish to impose upon women? That we reject this very sort of determinism based on gender?

Leave it to elections to send us looking for boxes again.

Thank You, Ann.

Isn't the whole point of this feminism deal that we reject the boxes that many wish to impose upon women? That we reject this very sort of determinism based on gender?

"I think a lot of the distaste for Clinton comes from exactly what she was describing - young women who want to identify with men, show they aren't threatening, etc."

Leave it to elections to send us looking for boxes again, to use against ourselves as weapons.

I support Clinton, but I don't have any major problems with Obama. Whoever gets the nomination has my vote.

This morning in one of my classes someone said this election was basically a "race v gender" election. I really had to restrain myself not to leap across the room and strangle her.

I am not voting for Clinton BECAUSE she's a woman. It's a bonus, but not the reason I support her.

I'm sorry, but I think you've failed to support your argument about this passage, Ann. Morgan is giving very reasonable examples of situations that we all know have happened and will happen. I think it's clearly implied that these women would be Clinton supporters, if it weren't for the strong pressures against choosing her as their preferred candidate. Some women, believe it or not, do look at Hillary Clinton and think she'd be a better President. I'm one of them.

I feel badly that you're offended, but really - this is a bit of a stretch.

MirandaJay and K - In that same section, right after the words quoted by Ann in this post, Morgan writes, "I’d rather say a joyful Hello to all the glorious young women who do identify with Hillary, and all the brave, smart men—of all ethnicities and any age—who get that it’s in their self-interest, too. She’s better qualified. (D’uh.)"

I read those words in that context as saying that young women who identify with Obama are trying to be cool or are seeking male approval, while those that identify with Hilary are "glorious young women." Oh, and she didn't leave the menz out either. Only those that support Clinton are barve and smart and "get it." Because she's better qualified, "D'uh".

Yep, I'd say condescending is a fair reading of her words, not to mention arrogant and sanctimonious. Because it's off topic, I'm not going to comment on the part earlier in her asseverations where she says Obama is passing as white.

She doesn't seem to be picking on young feminists here, but "some young women." I can accept that. The Obama girl thing IS really annoying. And I think there are definitely young people who are streaking to Obama-mania based mostly on hype and "cool" factor. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of young, issue-voter Obama supporters as well. But there ARE people (of all ages) who pay little attention to the issues and still vote. And whatever, as long as they turnout & vote, I guess I don't really care why they're doing it. The first major feminist step for some young women is simply to use the vote they've been given.

The sad part about reading this is I know of a LOT more young women who fit her description than the type Ann is offended for. Feminists, even among women, are a minority in my large state university and for many of the reason described.

There's that, plus I have a friend who said she was voting for Obama. I asked her why and she said she saw a lot of posters up for him in the dorms, knew nothing else. I would be equally offended if she'd been backing Clinton for this reason.

It's these people, who are either controlled by anti-feminist men or distracted by shiny things, that scare the hell out of me.

All I have to say is,
THANK YOU, Robin!!! That was the most inspiring, feminist piece I've read in awhile. I'm a young woman, 27 to be exact (though I am starting to feel a little too old for this site) and frankly, I agree with all she said. Empowering. Feminist. Finally.

And Go Hillary. I, as a feminist, need you to win.

I don't think voting for Obama is anti-feminist. Nor do I think voting for Hillary just because she's a woman is in any way wrong.

After all, plenty of people supposedly voted for Bush because they thought he's the kind of man they'd like to have a beer with. Hillary is an accomplished woman, I can totally see why a woman would want to vote for her.

BTW, I voted for Obama, and my wife and mother voted for Clinton. Hillary's inability to clearly speak out against the Iraq debacle decided me; her detailed positions on various other topics decided my wife. My mother bluntly states that she's voting for Hillary because she's a woman, and I completely understand her view!

I am not going to apologize for liking this essay. WAY too often in this campaign is there a pressure and a need for women to APOLOGIZE or justify themselves for supporting Senator Clinton.

A simple blanket "I vote on issues" is all that is needed to vote for Obama, regardless of any backup and the fact that the candidates are VERY similar - so much that this blanket response is a poor summary of an actual decision.

I think it is foolish for this site to condemn the idea that some young women do feel influenced by these compelling factors. I've witnessed it first hand with friends and coworkers.

I don't think I have seen ANYWHERE the constant reiteration that anyone doesn't support Obama because of his "issues" without actually having to come up with examples as no Obama supporter is ever asked to do.

I think I agree with Morgan's essay in the sense that there probably ARE young women (and older women, and men) who won't vote for Hillary because she is a woman. But the face that there are people that will vote AGAINST Hillary just because she is female does not mean one SHOULD vote for her for the same reason. It is similarly true that there are people (the majority of which would never admit it in public) who would not vote for a Black man, but that does not mean people should cast their votes in favor of Obama as counterweight votes.
I think the hardest thing for me during this primary election is knowing that as a Democrat choosing between either Hillary or Obama, no matter who I voted for I was going to end up on the same side as people that I am usually diametrically opposed to. If I vote for Hillary- there are several hawkish, comparatively conservative people on that particular side of the fence. In voting for Obama, I will inevitably find myself on the same side of the fence as those who just don’t want a female president. I HATE being in the company of either of those groups but in the winner-take-all American political system, I have no choice but to hold my nose and vote.
I think Morgan is right in the sense that there ARE a lot of misguided people (see earlier feministing post regarding letter to the editor from Brittany, age 13 on women being unfit to be president) and yes, there are women young and old who run as far from the feminist label as possible- though I think for the most part they wouldn’t be voting for anyone on the Democratic ticket anyhow. I think the vast majority of women who are voting for either Obama or Clinton have put long and serious thought into their votes. Like Morgan I like Hillary’s health care plan, but I can’t get past her hawkishness. That, in the end, was the deciding factor for me.
I think that even older feminists can’t help but be effected by the media representation of young women as a bunch of girls gone wild. (Having an Obama girl didn’t help at all). I think Morgan, in reacting against that archetype may have cut too close to home by not being more specific and a little too over-eager in her support of Hillary. Even she says in her article that “97% of Hillary’s policies..are the same as Obama’s�.
To me, the article is doing two things 1) Celebrating the first REAL chance that a woman could win not only a major party nomination but the actual presidency and 2) Condemning the misogyny that female candidates must still face.

I think Morgan’s biggest mistake here was just being very excited about Clinton’s chances for success and not being more specific. Unfortunately I’d have to agree that there are self-hating women out there who don’t think women are fit to be president. I just don’t think that is why most women (dems anyway) who decide to not vote for Clinton made their decision. Not sure we should all be terribly insulted though… I think given what many 2nd wavers have seen, done & been through, I would be just a touch cynical at this point as well.

Yup. THANK YOU, Ann. Not every young woman who supports Obama is Obama Girl, and since when are women required to support female candidates just because they're female?!

I really appreciate you posting this, and especially your emphasis on the ISSUES -- I wish the mainstream media would take a closer look at THOSE.

Crshark: Where does Robin Morgan claim that Obama is passing as white?(honest question, not being snarky- I didn't see it). I am forced to ask though- since Obama is biracial, doesn't he have the right to claim white and black, or do you think he is just allowed either/or?

I'm a total n00b in the Movement, and consider both Obama and Clinton to be feminists by definition of how they vote. I am also aware, and thankful, that ObamaGirl certainly does not reflect the typical woman who supports Obama. But I do have a big problem with sexualizing the political process. I know that Morgan's article wasn't about that alone, but I think phenomena like ObamaGirl cripple our ability to take politics seriously as a whole, and set women back by encouraging men not to take them seriously. The whole ObamaGirl thing made me sick, to tell you the truth. It certainly didn't surprise me that men were behind it. In fact, that character was part of the reason I was tilted in Clinton's direction at caucus time. I think that as long as ObamaGirl type characters are created, every woman that votes for the Obamas of the future will be misjudged. Furthermore, I see a trend in democratic men I know - they are overwhelmingly supporting Obama. As a new feminist, I'm not sure what to make of this, but by first inclination is the "good ol' boys club" in action.

I therefore think I made a good decision in caucusing for Senator Clinton, but I'd be happy with either candidate for President. Either way, a mold will be broken once either one of them is even nominated.

I am a feminist and I am caucusing for Obama. My reasoning is because I am disgruntled with the Democratic Party and the insiders who are running it. I have found ample proof to convince me that Clinton is an insider who ultimately relies on top-down politics. Obama could be the same, but the movement and grassroots organizing I have seen from his campaign is encouraging. If he doesn't put people before corporations and help create a bottom-up democracy - well then the grassroots should be there with the netroots to hold him accountable and spread the word.

The article cited above offends me. Is it really that hard for some Clinton supporters to understand I am supporting Obama for valid reasons? And perhaps the majority of Obama supporters are also? Why the disconnect?

I think it's clearly implied that these women would be Clinton supporters, if it weren't for the strong pressures against choosing her as their preferred candidate.

How in the world do you know that? Even if it were true that many young women are supporting Obama for those reasons (*cringe*), neither you nor the writer quoted in the OP say a damn thing about these women's actual political inclinations -- you're both just unhappy that not all women are a gimme for Clinton just by virtue of being women.

I am a young woman (I'm 24) who is happily voting for Obama, and I don't feel I owe an apology for you or anyone else claiming to speak for capital-F Feminism (or "all women everywhere" for that matter, like NOW-NY). I am a feminist. I don't feel that I am compromising my feminism in any way by voting for Obama -- far from it. I am exercising the rights won for me by the hard work of the generations of feminists before me by voting for the candidate I feel is right, the candidate that frankly I think will actually be better for women in terms of policy. And I absolutely resent any implication that I am doing otherwise, ESPECIALLY that my considered, sincere vote is somehow pandering to the patriarchy.

Nazrafel -- There's a section of the essay that's entitled "Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white . . .", The first sentence of the third paragraph of that section reads, "Goodbye to a campaign where he [referring to Obama] has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable)."

In answer to your question, because there is such a complex mixture of attributes -- genetic, historical, cultural, economic -- that go into a person's racial identity, my approach is to honor and respect whatever racial identity a particular person chooses for him/herself or to honor and respect a person's decision to disclaim any racial identity. I think it is the height of arrogance for someone to question any other person's racial identity, even more so where the "race" of the person doing the questioning is different from the one over who s/he is passing judgment.

Sorry Ann, but I agree with many here that this argument seems to be a stretch. I think you're forgetting a lot of Middle America, where feminism isn't only a dirty word, it's simply 'not allowed.' I grew up there.

For Robin to point out that this problem remains wasn't an insult directed at feminists. There are indeed women afraid to vote for Clinton because of looking like they're voting with their vaginas.

I just wrote an article about the blind Hillary hate being a pretty obnoxious, and while I love feministing, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one. Feminists should be helping the women who don't realize they're oppressed. And it seems like that's what Robin was trying to do.

Not all women are Hillary supporters just like not all African Americans are Obama supporters. I like how she doesn't seem to take that into account, though. There are African American Hillary supporters like there are female Obama supporters. But oh wait, that doesn't matter, right? Of course not because it would screw up her argument, so she pretends that piece of data just doesn't exist.

I'm irritated by this essay. I am an Obama supporter. I've fought my way through the conservative midwest, dealt with several sexist people (including my family/parents) and guess what? I would be proud to have a female president. I want to see one very soon, including this next election. I simply agree with Obama on more issues (Kate21, I can explain which ones and why to you if you wish). While, yes, I'm sure some women were led to the decision to support Obama through social forces, I think she does a poor job of synthesizing that issue and addressing it. Let's try reaching out to them and helping to empower them instead of FURTHER TALKING DOWN TO THEM. This essay does nothing positive or productive except tear down other women. That's it. Tearing other women down does not further our cause, but hinders it. We need to build community, understanding and empowerment, not proclaim that women who obviously buckle under social pressure are weak, ignorant or traitors to other women.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I will support her for President, just like I will support Obama. I don't think she's a bad candidate (in fact, I think she's a fantastic candidate who is incredibly intelligent and savvy) and I appreciate what she's doing for women in politics. I appreciate the difficulty and what she's facing. I am, however, really tired of this turning into a battle of the traditionally oppressed. It accomplishes nothing. Let's leave the gender and race out of it. That means that people like Robin Morgan need to re-think their arguments. Women who vote for Obama are not mindless and are not traitors. We simply decided on a different candidate.

Hey feminists, here's a related question I've been mulling over:

Sure, there are plenty of feminists who support Obama over Clinton, usually because they're lefties and they think he's overall more progressive. Or for whatever reasons, I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth.

But I'm wondering, can you support Clinton and not be at least a bit of a feminist?

I'm suggesting that anyone who thinks an ambitious, aggressive woman is the best choice to be Commander in Chief of the Military, President of the U.S., leader of the largest economy in the world, and that she's going to do a better job than the male candidates, likely has some feminist inspiration behind that.

I put this question to a friend and he was pretty unconvinced. I think maybe it was his reaction to the idea that anyone who supports Clinton should get some kind of feminist credential for that. But that's what I'm wondering. Maybe they should.

To clarify, I'm not sure what I think is the answer to this question. It rather broadens the definition of feminism to suggest that the millions of Clinton supporters are all feminists. But hey, maybe that's a good thing and we should point it out. Or maybe it turns a movement into mouthwash, I don't know.

I'm with Ann, and I'm 48 years old. I voted for Obama today because I think he's a better candidate, and because I am not nearly as impressed by what Hillary Clinton said *in 1968* as I am by how cautious she's been on many issues since her election to the Senate. She's been a huge disappointment to me as a feminist of 35 years' standing, not to mention that a second Clinton presidency will bring back the Arkansas Project, Whitewater, and almost certainly at least one or two "bimbo eruptions" from the First Husband.

Most important: Hillary Clinton is heavily connected to a Religious Right Bible Study group in Washington, as detailed in this article from Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html. I don't care if she's a Democrat, a Republican, a Green, or a Libertarian: anyone who willingly studies the Bible as part of a group that intends to make this a "Christian nation" and believes that wives should be subordinate to their husbands is not a feminist. Period. She may be a competent Senator, and if she wins the nomination I'll vote for her, but right now I think we'd be better served by Obama.

And finally...isn't Robin Morgan the Second Wave feminist who was ashamed of being bisexual and lied about having a female lover? And who's basically dropped out of sight for the last dozen or so years? I remember being impressed by her anthologies back in college, but I can't recall her doing much since. Why has she suddenly surfaced, and why is she expecting to be taken seriously after keeping to such a low profile? I'm genuinely curious, since she's scarcely a household name these days.

Kate - I've noticed that, too. (in reference to Obama supporters not being scrutinized as much as Clinton supporters).

I agree that everyone should choose their candidate primarily on their position on important issues, and also on how well they would get these issues to the table. I, personally, am a Hillary supporter, though I love Obama also. What's really annoying me in the past few weeks is *some* of Obama's supporters - the ones who don't question anything he says, or that they love his smile, or that he's the best candidate just because he's "newer". Some of them are so fervent you'd think they were campaigning for Jesus! I even heard one person say that Obama could walk on water. I agree he's a great politician and incredibly inspirational and intelligent, it just bugs me how cult-like some of his supporters are getting here in Los Angeles. I think it blinds people to the facts that Obama IS a politician, and not some sort of infallible deity. Again, I'm only speaking of SOME of his supporters, certainly not the majority. I just had to vent :)

I'm sure there are a lot of antichoicers who would agree with Morgan and the commenters defending her article: that many young women don't know when they're being manipulated and oppressed, and are in need of saving from themselves. Good thing we have people on both sides of Feminism around to "enlighten" them.

...and so remarkable that these would-be saviors know SO many young women in need of enlightening. Says a lot about pervasive and entrenched opinions about the capacities of women in general. Oh wait, opinions of SOME women.

Somehow I missed the Obama video(s?!) last summer. Now that I've started to catch up by following the link back, I feel I seem to have missed something important in my femininity as well - am I abnormal for not hanging out with my female friends in bobettes and little camisoles?! It looks like so much fun... (DRIPPING with sarcasm and bewilderment)

Also, the video I saw looks to be by a company called "barely political" - I can't believe there are people who take this seriously. But I know there are. Yikes.

I don't know why feministing is always trying to pit old feminists against younger ones.

Yeah, no shit. Even though Ann says Morgan is talking about young feminists, I don't see that anywhere. She is referring to "some young women," which I think she made pretty goddamn clear. Or do you, Ann, honestly believe that no young women ever devote way too much time to impressing men, and never behave differently around them? What about all the women who go around saying "I'm not a feminist but..." Why, do you think, if a woman clearly has feminist ideas, would she not identify as such?

The fact is, a LOT of young women, myself included, care way too much about what men think of them, and there's no reason to take that as a slam against young women; it's a problem that needs to be dealt with, and slicing the head off of anyone who points it out isn't going to do a goddamn thing to advance our goals. I personally believe that if we could get all women, right now, to stop catering to men so damn much, things would be worlds different from what they are right now; in fact, I even believe it could send patriarchy crashing to its knees. I remember watching a video about transpeople once, and one man who had transitioned said he couldn't believe how much women catered to him once he was a man, and I believe there have been many studies about how differently women act around men and how they cater to them, act less intelligent, etc. I know I certainly did that at one time, and still do it all too often.

Furthermore, if memory serves me right, this site has often discussed how young women try to cater to men, but suddenly it's offensive when it comes from a woman who's no longer young and patriarchally approved? Seriously, just because Robin Morgan isn't hawt and "cool," we should take her apart for saying the same things we've said ourselves? Talk about internalizing misogyny.

And, if you'd look at the subheading, Morgan is saying that there's NOT a generational divide among women, that it's been misrepresented and that young women aren't actually all inanity like the Obama Girl -- and hell, even the Obama Girl isn't as inane as she seems, but is rather going along with some dumb dudes' ideas. But you know, way to help the media misrepresent and overblow the idea of some big generational gap/catfight between women.

Golly geez. What is all this about old feminists BS. Uh, maybe I am too old at 33, but my heroes are OLD FEMINISTS. I owe everything to them. Susan B Anthony would soooooooooo vote for Hillary if only she could have voted. And we need to look to our past like those crazy dinosaurs Alice Paul, Gloria Steinem et al so that we can build on that dream. We are only where we are today cause women have pioneered before us. We were not just given this opportunity. The women before us fought for the future.

It's so sad to see so many taking for granted their freedoms. You can disagree with Clinton's policies, and you don't have to vote for her. You have that choice cause women have suffered to get you that opportunity. But do not ask me to give up the fight. To not speak with fire when I see the young women going backward. Disagree with me, but damnit show some anger. Show some fight.

When Clinton/Core first ran in '92, I was the young voter feeling inspired. But I always remained spirited. My generation had riot grrls. We had huge feminist ideals and punk rock! This generation has Linsday and Brit Brit. I am sorry, but the article seems 100% relevant.

I will end with a line from the great Sleater-Kinney:

I can demure like girls who are soft for boys who are fearful of getting an earful... But I gotta rock!

I'm sure there are a lot of antichoicers who would agree with Morgan and the commenters defending her article: that many young women don't know when they're being manipulated and oppressed, and are in need of saving from themselves. Good thing we have people on both sides of Feminism around to "enlighten" them.

Oh for God's sakes. That's not what anybody is saying, and you know it damn well. In fact, if you really look at it, it's NOT really so dumb for women to cater to men -- men hold a hugely disproportionate amount of power in society, and often a woman's ability to get ahead or even her very SAFETY can depend upon how well she can conform to what the patriarchy expects of her. What women who try to please men are often doing is taking the best option they have out of a number of shitty options; we all have to cut our deals with the patriarchy, and it's not condescending to point that out; it's being realistic, and yes, it's uncomfortable to admit that we do this, but once again, IGNORING IT IS NOT GOING TO MAKE IT GO AWAY.

(Oh, and nice try on lumping us together with antichoicers -- or have you not heard that it's a common misogynist tactic to lump feminists in with right-wingers?)

Religiarchy, great article. The commenters illustrate the irrational, illogical hatred by certain Obama supporters.

I do wonder how Obama would have voted on the war initially, representing (against all odds, and having to do twice as well) both the conservative northern part of New York and the 5 boroughs surrounding the pit of Ground Zero only a year after 9'11. She has subsequently defended this by saying the objective was to allow the inspectors to finish the job. Who knows? But who also knows how Obama would have voted under such varied and explosive political and personal circumstances?

That's why I get really annoyed when someone says, "but she voted for the war!!" I mean, they both did continue to fund the war in 2006.

If people can offer electability and charisma as reasons to vote for a candidate, how about the amount of character-building one has to endure over the years?

Morgan trumps the same old BS that sexism is more damaging to women than racism has been to blacks.

Why cant feminists ever leave this alone? Both sexism and racism have been pervasive forces in american society, but every time you pit them against each other, racism is going to win every day of the week and twice on sundays. It makes feminists look weak and desperate for "victimhood" when they use this comparison. Frankly it hurts feminism because it takes off the focus of sexism as a stand-alone problem in american society.

Hi Ann,
Thanks for posting this. I thought it was interesting, and I enjoyed reading both Morgan's piece and your response to it. I'm not sure why you find it quite so offensive though. Is Morgan personally insulting you? Is it practical or even possible for her to insult an entire generation? I don't think so. I think it comes back to how we each see ourselves. When Morgan writes, "Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists..." she is addressing the women who fit that profile. Are you suggesting that there are no young women who embody the superficial characteristics she is addressing? I feel that I have met women who do, and I relate to her frustration with them. The way some people react to the word "femisism" you'd think that IT was a the real "f-bomb."

"Morgan trumps the same old BS that sexism is more damaging to women than racism has been to blacks."

I have to say this, but really this generalization works both ways. Every damn time someone says racism on this site they speak about color, more specifically black and white. Some of us other folks that are Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islanders, et all, are also feeling the effects of racism and sexism. It does not help me to see your side when you do the same generalization with race.