Letter To My White Sisters: That Hurts My Feelings

Two: she would be the first woman president. We need more women in office, generally, and I do not believe this will happen without someone big to lead the way. And I was glad that on Saturday night Hillary said “But I think I am an agent of change. I embody change. I think 
having the first woman president is a huge change...”***

Then all those women and young people the Hillary camp took for granted -- all those WOMEN LIKE ME who have been waiting their ENTIRE LIVES for this just might consider making it happen.*

Lately (especially post Iowa) I am seeing more and more of my white sisters saying that one of the reasons Hillary Clinton should be elected is because of the powerful, world changing, patriarchy smashing, awesome and beautiful message it would send.  And I agree it would.  But when you imply or flat out say that having a white woman in the White House is more important than having a black man there, that hurts my feelings as Hillary Clinton might say.

I have no problem with those who support Clinton because they believe she is the best candidate. I support Obama because I think his approach to policy is the strongest and most pragmatic and because I think he has assembled an incredible team of advisers, especially on foreign policy.

That Obama is black is just fantastic, awesome, pinch-me-I'm-dreaming icing on the cake. If Obama were not in the race, I would be supporting John Edwards and not Hillary Clinton. I have never been excited about the prospect of Hillary Clinton returning to the White House.  I am fairly certain I would not have teared up in joy had she won in Iowa. I supported her when she ran for Senate. I lived in New York at the time and voted for her. But it's been clear to me that, although she may not have been running for president since Kindergarten, she certainly has been running since about the time Bill told her that Monica was not a fiction of the vast right wing conspiracy. And, in those ten years or so, the only thing that has briefly excited me about her potential presidency was the prospect of a Bill Clinton Vice-Presidency. Although seeing him on the campaign trail has only brought up memories of the less fabulous aspects of his presidency, not warm fuzzies and actually has become cringe-inducing. 

A couple of years ago I decided that I hoped she would not run and rather would stay in the Senate and become the Majority Leader. I think the Senate is a good place for her to use her wonky talents. The role the president plays is not drafting legislation. The primary power of the office is in the bully pulpit, in the ability to lead and persuade and in the ability to be the psychological parent who heads our dysfunctional national family.

Senator Clinton's friends all say that she's warm, friendly and funny in person once you get to know her. But a president doesn't have the luxury of getting to know everybody individually and winning them over. Senator Obama moves and inspires masses and it matters. He's had my vote to lose since the Democratic convention in 2004. Not only hasn't he lost it but he has earned it as he has campaigned.

I love, adore and respect my white sisters but I am disappointed in some of them. A few have said that the power of seeing the first woman in the White House has put Clinton over the top as their candidate. I always point out that they can only say that because they are not black women.  That the face of racial equality is male and the face of gender equality is white is nothing new. But to see the promise of Hillary Clinton in the White House without even acknowledging the promise of Barack Obama in the White House is a matter of privilege.

By privilege I do not mean racism. All whites are privileged just as men are privileged, as are able bodied people, as are heterosexuals and as are many others in our society. Privilege means the luxury of not having to think about your race, gender or other status because it is treated as the norm and not as deviant or other or in any way as less than fully human. As a woman you are constantly aware of all the ways in which the patriarchy limits you, discriminates against you, dehumanizes you and in ways big and small just beats you down.  Unless you choose to, if you are a man you do not have to think about all the ways in which you benefit from being male.  And if you are white, unless you choose to, you do not see the ways in which racism is just as much a cancer as the patriarchy because you are not forced to think about your race and the benefits that flow from it every single day.  So my white sisters, even if you are aware of sexism every day, I seriously doubt that when you speak only of the power of a woman in office that you are aware of racism every day.

I know this because I benefit from white privilege even though I'm black.  I'm made aware of my privilege every time I go to dinner with friends and I am the only person at the table the waitress will speak to.  I'm made aware of my privilege when I go into shops with family and they are followed and I am not.  I'm made aware of my privilege when white people assume I share their racist thoughts and they spill their secrets to me unaware that I'm working undercover.  I'm made aware of my privilege and thus the corresponding depth of racism every day.  So just as I know that patriarchy is an evil cancer, I know quite viscerally that white women and black men are both privileged and deemed unworthy by the same forces of power that rule by fear.

One argument that has been made to me is that patriarchy is the bigger problem.  Patriarchy doesn't just harm women, it harms men as well by forcing them into molds of hyper-masculinity and requiring behavior and desires of them that robs them of a bit of their souls.  But for every evil patriarchy inflicts on both men and women, racism inflicts evil equally on the souls of all Americans (and I'm limiting myself to Americans simply because I am discussing it is in the context of our presidential election).

But what finally got me is the fact that Hillary will represent change for over half the population. It's more changy. If Obama is elected I will be very pleased, but a part of me will still think that the power structure (which the media is a part of) is continuing to tell more than half our young people that they should not shoot as high and they will not get as far. Because of who they are.**

A similar argument is that since women are half the country, it's a bigger change if Clinton is elected. But again I'll argue that sexism is bad for men and women just as racism is bad for people of every color. Eliminating either is good for everybody not just the target of the oppression.

But just to spar with myself a bit, arguably, black men are in possibly the toughest state of any group in our country.  I'd also argue that the future in the United States is more promising for the average white girl than it is for the average black boy.

To that point, the boogeymen of this election are not women.  We are asked by candidates, including Clinton, to fear brown-skinned men.  We are told that men from the south and the east are coming to steal our jobs and to kill our children and we must pick the president who will be the toughest or most ready to beat them back.  What better message to send to ourselves and the world than that we choose a brown-skinned man offering a message of hope, not fear, to lead us?

Another argument I've heard is that Barack isn't as much a role model for people of color as Hillary is for women.  Barack is too privileged, too bougie. Heh, maybe that's why I like him as my family is bougie as hell (Links, Jack and Jill, AKA).  And, yes, Obama is privileged but let's compare and contrast with Clinton:  Both are millionaire authors of best-selling autobiographies who went to Ivy League law schools.  Both of them are worlds apart from the lives of 99% of those whom they hope to represent.  Sorry, dear white sister who made this argument, but with love I'm telling you that I'm not buying that Hillary makes a better role model because Barack is not enough of a real Negro and little black children need better.

I do not begrudge you, my white sisters, of the awesome feelings of pride you felt when watching Hillary in the 90's.  I respect deeply the message you want her election to send to your daughters.  But I ask that you respect and at least acknowledge the feelings Barack inspires in me and the message I want my nephews to receive.  And, please, please, please stop telling me that your dream is more important than mine.

*Erin has previously posted about why Obama's election would be important as well.

**Please click to read Elisa's entire comment and see her comment below.  I did not mean to imply that she did not acknowledge the importance of Obama's candidacy.

***Ditto for Morra. 

Sorry for all the editing to anyone who might have me in their feed reader and is getting multiple updates.  I completely understand if you unsubscribe after tonight.

The quotes that I included are just a small sampling of things I've read and interviews I've seen.  They stuck in my mind because they are friends and I respect them enough to not just read what they write but remember and know where to find quotes.  It just feels like post Iowa all of a sudden there's a resurgence of  commentary that we have to elect Clinton for our daughters as a woman on CNN said today and that it's coming because Obama might win.  I have my lenses and biases as I (hope) I've pointed out above.

And, to be fair and balanced, I'll point out that if you read the rash of articles after Obama's win in Iowa about how happy black folks are about that, you'll also see little mention of the symbolic importance of Clinton.  I'd argue though that it's because Clinton's power was acknowledged when she was the front runner and Obama's wasn't really believed until he won.

Edited to include: I encourage you check out Rita Arens post on BlogHer about why she is voting for Clinton which adds an excellent counter-perspective to this discussion.

Comments

[Sarah Dopp]

This is awesome, Maria. Thank you for posting it. I'm particularly moved by this paragraph:

"I know this because I benefit from white privilege even though I'm black. I'm made aware of my privilege every time I go to dinner with friends and I am the only person at the table the waitress will speak to. I'm made aware of my privilege when I go into shops with family and they are followed and they are not. I'm made aware of my privilege when white people assume I share their racist thoughts and they spill their secrets to me unaware that I'm working undercover. I'm made aware of my privilege and thus the corresponding depth of racism every day. So just as I know that patriarchy is an evil cancer, I know quite viscerally that white women and black men are privileged and deemed unworthy by the same forces of power that rule by fear."

Wow.

Amen.

[arse poetica]

Maria Niles, I am crushing on you so hard right now. This is an awesome post, and I would stay here and gush, but I need to figure out how to get the word out about it. Eloquent and righteous, and yes.

The identity politics aspect of this breaks
my heart (what doesn't), not least because we never seem to learn our lessons. ALL BOATS MUST RISE.

I cried listening to Obama at the convention in '04, thinking, Oh, thank God, finally someone to believe in, finally this generation's MLK (I was moved!). There's our president one day. If he becomes president, my heart might burst from the incredible hope of it all. I'm sad to say that I'll have only a mild pro-feminist moment if Hillary is elected. Yes, in the abstract it will be a historic moment, etc., etc., but her politics aren't mine, and I want to believe, dammit.

Also, as you so eloquently point out: neither of these candidates is exactly representative of the hoi polloi. We've got something else at work here: class privilege, and who's going to talk about it? Who's going to (attempt to) rectify it? I have my suspicions.

Thanks again for your eloquence on the subject. xo

[Maria Niles]

Sarah and arse poetica, It warms my heart to no end that you get what I'm trying to say. Thank you for your kind words.

It's hard to know when you're writing in rant mode if you're making any sense. :-)

[Elisa Camahort]

I understand where you're coming from Maria, but to be fair I wish you had quoted this part of my comment on BlogHer:
"I was torn for a long time between Obama and Hillary, because both represented both significant and, IMHO, much-needed change for this country and its direction. Not just of what they will do or what they believe, but yes, because of who they are."

So I would never ever not "acknowledge the promise of Barack Obama in the White House"...in the abstract and also because I can see him as a harbinger of the future for my own nephews.

Like Arse I remember 2004 vividly. I yelled upstairs to the S.O. that he needed to come watch Obama's speech, and I spoke this aloud: "If we cannot elect *this* man President, then I will be afraid that we can never elect a black man President."

But as I see the media engaging in the most disappointing and obvious gender stereotyping and positioning of Clinton, I become incensed, and become convinced I have my voice in my vote. Meanwhile, I might be blind to similar stereotyping of Obama (and would be curious to know your thoughts on the media depiction of him and where you feel they are doing similar stereotypical positioning), but I feel like he is getting a fairer shake.

The sad truth is that I am disturbed by the playing of the race *and* gender cards in this campaign. I've been disappointed in Hillary *and* Obama, as I wrote about here:
http://homepage.mac.com/elisa_camahort/iblog/C787600738/E20071231081839/index.html

I think our country is so mega-screwed up in our attitudes about all of the above. And it is sucking the candidates in, and it is trying to suck us all in.

I'm just waiting for some talk show ranter or Fox news "analyst" to complain reverse racism and sexism because I know so many people right now who want anyone except "another middle-aged white guy" in the White House.

[Amy S.]

Wow indeed.

I make this same point of privilege to my husband when I try to explain to him why he's perplexed that his Jewish wife doesn't think that his Jew-bagel comments are funny or why she's outraged when he blows off those horrible Imus comments. He has never known racial, religious or gender discrimination and that truly is a privilege.

Your point about Hillary's talents being best suited for Congress was brilliant. There's no question that advocating for a woman to be in office simply because she's a woman is ridiculously short-sighted. She has to be the right woman for the right job at the right time.

I'm for Obama because he is the only candidate that I believe will rise above and see beyond the nasty game of partisan politics that has become our federal government. He is the only candidate who can bring some good old fashioned dignity and integrity back to this country. The fact that he's black is, as you say, icing on the cake.

Thanks for sharing this, Maria.

[Maria Niles]

Fair point about your comment, Elisa and I'll update the post to make clear that I didn't mean to imply that you did not acknowledge the importance of Obama's possible election.

As to media sterotyping, I totally agree that media portrayals of Clinton are ridiculous and utterly sexist. But I do think there is plenty of racist narrative surrounding Obama like wow can you believe he speaks so well, he's not really black, he's not black enough, he's too black, he's half white (therefore more acceptable), how dare he talk to rappers, he's not really Christian because he attends a racist Afrocentric church, and did you hear, he's actually a drug dealing, coke snorting, Muslim Manchurian Candidate whose middle name is Hussein and whose last name rhymes with Osama.

[Erin Kotecki Vest (Queenofspain)]

I'm so glad to see this post!

When I'm really, really honest with myself-I want them BOTH in office for all the wrong reasons. Not their politics or their record-I want it on the books. First. History.

I want it soooooo bad right now it HURTS.

I can't say I would ever put one over the other as far as importance or significance. I have my reasons for each and each of them carry very personal thoughts and reflections for me.

Which is why I've written, probably too much, about BOTH. I've talked at length on why I want Obama and I've talked just recently about why I'd love to see Clinton. (thanks for the links, btw)

Then when I'm really, really, REALLY honest with myself -that moment where I will need to make a choice and vote- I know it will come down to what it is supposed to come down to-their politics and their record and the issues.

As frustrated as I am with this entire thing I will say this: I'm just happy as hell we're discussing this. I'm happy as hell we're all writing about a woman as president a black man as president.

It's real. It's here. I just hope one of them closes the deal and it's for all the right reasons and for the good of the country and what we need as a nation.

Done blubbering.

[Maria Niles]

arse: You make a very good point about class. I think this is part of the reason why Huckabee is connecting on the Republican side.

Amy S.: Thank you for your comment. Religion is something that is another important source of privilege in this country.

Erin: I don't think you've written too much and I hope you keep writing. I truly meant that I wrote this with love and I think it's important that we talk about these issues. I believe the comments here, on your posts, on BlogHer and on Twitter shows that there is a desire to keep discussing.

[badgerbag]

I hear you Maria... plus you made me crack up at how you helpfully linked up "bougie".

Basically I want us out of the war and I want everyone in the country to have access to health care. Both situations are dire. I'm watching for those issues. But yeah I think of the gender and race context & identity as well.

[Elisa Camahort]

Thanks Maria.

Oh yeah, there's that whole Osama/Obama thing!

Seriously, thanks for that litany...I definitely have seen some of that. The most frustrating must be the "he's not really black" vs "Is America ready for a black president" thing. Talk about lose-lose.

[Maria Niles]

badgerbag: I'm here to help decode our lingo ;-) And, I agree. The candidate that really speaks to my policy heart is of course Dennis Kucinich but electability, yada, yada, yada. How awesome would it be if my Congressional representative, Barbara Lee, were somehow able to magically be teleported into the presidency? Out of Iraq, universal healthcare and from a black woman!

Elisa: I'm good with the litanies and indeed the standards of blackness thing depresses me to no end. There's no measure when you're pulled over for DWB.

[Elisa Camahort]

Barbara Lee, yes!

From my days as a CDP convention-goer I've heard her speak several times...she rocks!

BTW: If you didn't watch the Colbert Report tonight, Andrew Sullivan was the guest and presented a very impassioned, articulate case for Obama.

This, from a former Republican. it's the best I've ever seen Sullivan.

Since it only plays 8 times a day, I'm sure you can catch a rerun tomorrow, if you missed it.

[Maria Niles]

I'll see it as I'm still up and already read an article describing in detail what happened on both shows hours before they aired! Sad, I know.

[Erin Kotecki Vest (Queenofspain)]

I just found a really interesting commentary on this subject in the comments of today's Pandagon post---get way on down in the comments it just keeps going

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/07/6531/

Not sure what I think, but I did find this interesting:

"Nobody openly debates whether blacks should “submit” to whites in this country, but just such a debate, regarding women submitting to men, is an open subject for candidates for president."

and then this-

"Ah come on….now we’re getting into the “my oppression is bigger than your” thing.

Hell, I didn’t fall for THAT when I was a young ‘un—I sure as hell knew that was a tool to keep everyone divided….Both are crap and we don’t need either of ‘em…"

It's a good discussion over there...entirely too tired to jump in though. Good night all!

[Maria Niles]

Interesting find, Erin, thanks for sharing it.

Re: the debate about women submitting, it's Huckabee and the Southern Baptist thing. Arguably Romney and the Mormon thing makes their unwillingness to recognize blacks as equals until 1978 equally open to debate.

"Both are crap and we don't need either of them" is right on.

Another note: I'm listening to Rachel Maddow note that even though she isn't a Clinton supporter she finds herself saying supportive things just to counter the media narrative that's attacking her - to your point Elisa.

And just to throw a bit of a hand grenade into this whole discussion I'll toss in these bits of racist (if you choose to see them as such - I'm willing to chalk 'em up to general campaign stupidity) wisdom from the Clintons...

From Jack and Jill Politics: Hillary says Johnson deserves credit for realizing MLK Jr.'s dream of civil rights http://tinyurl.com/2lf5qu and from Too Sense Bill says Hillary is tougher than Nelson Mandela http://tinyurl.com/39gwcr

[Erin Kotecki Vest (Queenofspain)]

I'm wondering if that line of thinking is exactly what I'm doing-being protective over HRC. In the 90's I would have never questioned voting for her-today is a much different story. However I find myself defending her and getting really riled up over the gender rhetoric.

Maybe that's sisterhood. Despite my probably Obama vote, I've still got Clinton's back when the world gets nasty.

I'll just be happy when this is all over and I can get behind the Democratic Nominee to write and cheer and campaign. I really can't wait.

[Marilyn]

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for this post! It's so beautifully written. (Thanks to Erin for Twittering the link.) I put up two Obama posts on why he'll get my vote as a candidate regardless of color...and why I'm thrilled about his color. You just knocked me out with this...I hope many get a chance to read it.

[Britt Bravo]

Great post, Maria. Fingers crossed for New Hampshire. I have to say that I am tired of the focus on gender and race, although I know it's unavoidable. Bottom line is, the best candidate should win, and that's Barack!

[Kim Pearson]

Maria, this deserves an award for best single post of the year. The analysis is sharp; the point of view is authoritative -- but then, I would expect no less. A few thoughts:

One thing we must acknowledge is that gender, race, class -- and the stereotypes appended thereto -- do not exist in isolation. Obama and Clinton get loved or penalized to the degree that they adhere to or violate the expectations on all the vectors of their social locations. Imagine either of them interracially married, for example. As it is, part of the trouble people have with the Hillary narrative is that Bill is stereotyped as a Bubba, and Hillary is not the type of white woman who is supposed to be naturally attracted to a working-class white southern man. (Genifer Flowers, or Paula Jones, on the other hand, were shoe-horned quite nicely into the stereotype of the kind of woman he'd go after).

And Obama's gender performance is policed as well. Remember the attack ad on Harold Ford that implied that he lusted after white women? I'm sure that the Obama campaign is acutely aware of the importance of showing how happily married he is. And Elisa is right about Obama male privilege against Hillary.

I wish that Elisa and Britt's wishes that we could just focus on electing the best candidate could be a reality, but these anxieties about race, class and gender are going to have to be worked out. Remember all of the talk about how Mitt Romney looks presidential? That's about race, class and gender too, but we don't talk about that. But people who criticize Romney et. al. don't accuse him of playing the race or gender card.

Finally, I'm a little leery of the "biology is destiny" perspective. Sure, the symbolism of having Clinton or Obama as president is wonderful. (Do you notice how nobody tears up over the prospect of Richardson being the first Latino president?) But in the end, it's about policy, stupid. Margaret Thatcher is a woman, but a lot of feminists would rather have seen a Labor Party male as Britain's PM. The example of Condoleezza Rice alone should put essentialism to rest.

All of that said, I think this is a rare and incredible opportunity to talk honestly about race and gender in the United States. I also think that the fact that none of the leading Democratic candidates started life as rich white men is incredibly good for America. We've been here before though - the debates between the suffragists and the abolitionists right after the Civil War, the debates over race and class in the early labor movement, the ongoing debates about sexism (and heterosexism) in the civil rights movement, racism (and heterosexism) in the feminist movement, racism (and misogyny) in the glbt movement, and classism overall. Those historical examples have much to teach us.

And one last thing about Obama being "bougie." Damned skippy he is. So am I, even though, as my more privileged black Princeton classmate once told me, "Your mother could have been my mother's maid!" Truth is most black folk are, regardless of class. So are most white folks. Being bougie means having aspirations to be middle or upper middle class. That's called being American. There is no shame in that game unless you forget Booker T. Washington's admonition that, "we must lift as we climb."

[Maria Niles]

Erin: I think you should get riled up when you see stupid gender rhetoric. And perhaps in my riled up state I posed it as a gender vs. race dynamic but really I think it's a both/and dynamic. Breaking either barrier will be a tiny step forward in this nation. There are still so many huge, massive barriers of oppression and systemic disenfranchisement that will still exist should either be elected but being optimistic and hopeful is not a bad thing.

My reaction was really just that after Obama won in Iowa and took the lead in New Hampshire, all of a sudden white women seemingly started speaking en masse about the importance of electing a woman, which sounded to me like it's more important to elect a woman than a black man.

See for example Gloria Steinem's piece this morning in the New York Times http://tinyurl.com/2ozrws

[Maria Niles]

Marilyn and Britt: Thank you so much for your comments and kind words. I appreciate your additions to this discussion.

Kim: Thank you and what can I say (short of writing a dissertation in response) but YES! to every thing you've said. Thank you so much for bringing this added depth and richness to the discussion.

[Lynne d Johnson]

Great post Maria. Really.

As soon as I started reading this, and the comments, I couldn't help but think of Douglass and Anthony -- voting rights and the parting of ways between white women and black men. It's this choosing of sides thing that still scares me about my country sometimes. It's the fact that women would vote for Hillary just because she is a woman, even when she doesn't stand for women (especially working women). And that black people would vote for Obama, even when he doesn't stand for black people.

The fact is, of course, probably more white women will be voting for Obama than even black people (though of course I do not know this as a fact and it is simply my conjecture). I just know that bc Jackson and Sharpton do no support him, and a great majority of blacks still ride with them -- they will also not support him.

But I'm digressing from this topic here.

When I heard the news about Iowa, I, being a black woman, didn't necessarily jump for joy. But tried to place this in some sort of cultural context that I could grasp. The context was in the benefit of celebrity, wherein Obama found himself in the same sphere as his most visible supporter -- Oprah Winfrey. Now I'm not saying his talk of change, his good looks, his charisma, whatever else, didn't get him Iowa, but we also can not ignore the fact that Oprah's support definitely helped him get Iowa. Because Oprah is white middle america and white middle aged women, this benefit extended itself to Obama. People who were not considering him, all of a sudden started listening to him, and let his message of change seep in.

I've probably gone off on several tangents here bc I had posted about the celebrity aspect on my own site, but tried to stay away from the race/gender debate as much as possible. I stayed away because I didn't want to get emotional about this. And then I came here and suddenly felt emotional.

Unfortunately, because we have not had either a woman president or a black president we are not yet at that great point in which MLK Jr. talked about when people could be judged for the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Nor should they be judged simply for their gender.

I only hope that when I go into the voting booth that I can go in both gender blind and color blind and vote according to whom I feel is the best candidate.

[Maria Niles]

Lynne, Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments. You have added an appreciated and healthy skepticism that deepens the discussion. Feel free to go off on as many tangents as you like. I'm loving the discussion happening here in the comments.

[Morra Aarons]

unthoughtful, quick comment: I do think it' about the numbers Maria. 57% of voters last night were women. We are the majority! Why do we never get to vote for our own? For me, it's about math.

I'm Jewish and would love to see a Jewish president but we're only 12% of the ppoulation....

[Maria]

Morra, thanks so much for commenting! And your comment may be quick but it is certainly not unthoughtful.

I definitely get the numbers and why white women are excited to vote for Clinton. Heck, plenty of black women are, too. And I have no issue with those who are supporting her because they believe she is the best candidate.

But when after Obama wins in Iowa and white women come out of every corner to say "OMG, I just realized that we need to vote for Hillary because she is a woman." Even when, (especially when) it is prefaced by "Yes it would be nice to elect a minority but it's important to elect a woman" I hear the privilege of being able to say "my oppression is bigger, more important and you black folks need to wait your turn." Sexism and racism are both bad and even if you aren't aware of it, racism is every bit as bad for white women as sexism is, you just don't feel it.

And as for getting to vote for your own - there are 16 women in the Senate and 1 African American. And it was the issues of both racism and sexism that a black woman (Anita Hill) raised in our collective consciousness that jump-started that movement to get women in the Senate. See what I mean about the issues being linked, not separate?