On AlterNet, Jill Filipovic rounds up the last few weeks in feminists' endorsements of, disagreements about, and responses to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It's not a cat-fight, she concludes, it's a deeply reasoned and substantive conversation among women (and men) who are debating and re-considering the many different ways feminism is practiced and feminist priorities are set.
Here is her very nice (and quite moving) conclusion:
But contrary to some media hype, this is hardly an inter-feminist cat-fight. Instead, it's just one example of the myriad ways in which feminists -- like women, and like other voters -- are not a monolith.
We are, however, passionate, informed and politically active enough to make Clinton and Obama work for our votes. No matter who comes out on top tonight (if anyone), women's rights activists are emboldened enough to demand a presidency that is not simply "better than Bush" or even just pro-choice; we want a feminist presidency that will protect the rights and liberties of women in the United States and around the world. That means promoting economic justice and universal health care (including comprehensive reproductive care), aiding low-income families, ending the war in Iraq, requiring pay equity, and sponsoring programs like Head Start and affordable child care that make parenthood possible.
Who will get the feminist vote? Who knows. But the goal of a feminist presidency is something we can all agree on. At least for now.
