“A Woman’s Place is in the White House!”

By Jess Keniston

clintonThe moment one opens a computer or switches on the TV, they are bombarded by the face of Hillary Clinton. Many campaigns in Clinton’s favor scream, “A WOMAN’S PLACE IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE,” implying that in nominating a female president, America has emerged victorious in the battle for women’s rights. Clinton’s feminism, as analyzed through a liberal feminist framework, is effective because she subverts male domination and works for women’s rights. However, many do not agree with her feminist standing.

On Clinton’s official campaign website, a quote emblazons the top of a page titled “Women’s rights and opportunity.” It reads: “I am a proud lifelong fighter for women’s issues, because I firmly believe what’s good for women is good for America.” In claiming this, Hillary implies that electing her as president will induce radical change in women’s rights. This statement is bought by some. For example, Clare Foran writes, “Clinton can claim a feminist victory by virtue of winning the nomination,” and quotes television producer Shonda Rhimes when she calls Clinton “a one-woman feminist revolution,” claiming that Hillary is creating real change for women. Judith Lorber claims, “The presence of a woman head of state does not necessarily represent a triumph of feminism, as most women politicians do not represent themselves as champions of women but as leaders of everyone. Feminist political and legal changes are much more likely to come from grassroots political movements and feminist organizations.” In fighting for women’s rights, Hillary may claim that she is a feminist, but will be unable to induce radical change for women while attempting to appeal to everyone.

However, many do not buy the argument that Hilary’s victory in securing the Democratic nomination is a feminist triumph or that she has the right to call herself a feminist at all. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani scoffs at Hillary’s “feminist” standing, accusing that she and her husband take “millions of dollars in speaking fees from dictators, oppressors; from people who discriminate against women to people who run countries where women can’t drive cars,” referring to the millions of dollars Clinton received from Saudi Arabia (Schow). Furthermore, Rex Murphy refutes any claim that Clinton has shattered the “glass ceiling”—a concept that Lorber defines as assuming “that women have the motivation, ambition, and capacity for positions of power and prestige, but hidden barriers keep them from reaching the top” (35). Murphy argues that Clinton has simply ridden on the coattails of her powerful husband and that “real” feminists gain success by themselves, without help from men. Based on these arguments, Clinton cannot be a true feminist while failing to embody feminist ideals. As Radical feminist theory states, women must “unite…in struggle,” and that no real change can happen until men “give up their male privileges and support women’s liberation in the interest of our humanity and their own” (Redstockings 131). Although nominating a woman as president is a great leap from the days where women were denied even the ability to vote, I believe that nominating a woman means the same thing for feminist triumph as electing a Black president did for African American triumph. This victory does not mean that the fight for women’s rights is won, or that it is remotely close to over. Hillary may address some feminist issues, but it is crucial to keep fighting for equity. Full disclose: I do feel a sense of empowerment hearing that a woman’s place is in the White House.

Image

The Monthly Rag: Block 3 2016

block-3-2016

#WhichHillary: Activists Respond to Clinton’s White Feminism

By Baheya Malaty (FGS ’18)

Which HillaryAt Hillary Clinton’s most-recent lavish private fundraising event in South Carolina, Black Lives Matter activist Ashley Williams interrupted the event by holding up a sign which read, “We have to bring them to heel.” The sign was a reference to a speech made by Clinton in 1994 in support of a crime bill that caused an astronomical increase in the mass incarceration of Brown and Black Americans. In support of that bill, Clinton referred to young people of color involved with gangs as “super predators.” In the aftermath of Williams’ direct action, the hashtag #WhichHillary has become a popular one for activists who seek to critique Clinton’s campaign, which has championed itself as dedicated to the fulfillment of women’s rights. Utilizing the frameworks introduced by Bushra Rehman and Daisy Hernandez in Colonize This!: Young Women of Color on Today’s Feminism will illustrate the contradictions and hypocrisies of Clinton’s brand of feminism, which she has used to great effect in her campaign.

Bushra and Hernandez write, “When the media vilifies a whole race, when a woman breaks the image of a model minority…or when our neighborhoods are being gentrified, this is… where our feminism lies” (378). Thus they articulate the concerns of young feminists of color who initially felt partially liberated by white feminism, but who also felt uncomfortable with and excluded by white feminist analyses and spaces. On Twitter, @erniesfo echoed this tension: “The Hillary Clinton who says she supports Latinos or the one who supports a coup in Honduras? #WhichHillary.” Political commentator and journalist Ali Abunimah wrote, “#WhichHillary, the one who claims to be a lifelong child advocate or the one who never saw an Israeli massacre she didn’t applaud?” Rehman and Hernandez can help illuminate the tension between Clinton’s seemingly advocating progressive policies while simultaneously upholding oppressive ones:

We’ve grown up with legalized abortion, the legacy of the Civil Rights movement and gay liberation, but we still deal with sexual harassment, racist remarks from feminists and the homophobia within our communities. The difference is that now we talk about these issues in women’s studies classes, in classrooms that are multicultural but xenophobic and in a society that pretends to be racially integrated but remains racially profiled. (378)

Clinton and her supporters have thus celebrated her dedication to women’s rights without recognizing the many ways in which her policies been anti-feminist and extremely harmful to women and children.

Activists using the #WhichHillary highlight the ways in which Clinton’s pro-women agenda is not pro-all women; rather, it specifically pertains to the concerns of Western, white, middle and upper class women. In this way, they illustrate how Hillary is not much of a feminist at all, and her championing of women’s rights is more of a marketing scheme than a legitimate political platform. Along these lines, Astrid Henry examines what is lost when people attempt to market feminism:

Without its critiques of white supremacy and privilege, heterosexism, and capitalism—not to mention its continued insistence on examining the ways in which sexism and misogyny continue to operate in the world—feminism becomes nothing but a meaningless bumper sticker announcing “girl power” (390).

Clinton, who has advocated for women’s rights but has also supported legislation which contributed to the mass incarceration of Black Americans and worked with neoconservatives to derail a democratically elected government in Honduras, is emblematic of this brand of feminism. Clinton’s feminism ultimately does little to address actual feminist concerns; therefore, it operates as a “meaningless bumper sticker” through which Clinton can draw support by presenting as a “pro-woman” candidate.