TWO ARTICLES: ONE MESSAGE

AND 

Latin American Press (Elsa Chanduvi, June 5, 2008): “Living Well,” a development alternative

Proposal is considered legacy of indigenous peoples to humanity

More than 1,000 representatives from indigenous communities across the Americas gathered in Lima, Peru, have agreed on a new social system, known as “Living Well,” focused on reciprocity between people and the Earth.

A break from market dogmas

“We believe there is a big difference between [living well and] those who believe that living well is to live better than someone else. [The latter] reflects a competition instead of respect and equality. So, ‘living well’ is the exercise of rights, respect, equality and means of life for everyone, said Blanca Chancoso, a renowned leader of Ecuador’s Kichwa women, who formerly served as one of the directors of the country’s largest indigenous organization, CONAIE. She is currently part of the Dolores Ulcuango Indigenous School in Ecuador.

Reading Blanca Chancoso’s description summed up perfectly what women of color and other marginalized groups have been battling against in the feminist movement for centuries: those who believe there is a difference between “living well” and those who believe “living well is to live better than someone else.”

So when Linda Hirshman (feminist author), sitting comfortably in the journalist poshland of the Washington Post, writes an article chastising women of color for dividing the feminist movement, I, like Chancoso, also ask for “a break from market dogma.” In this case, the dogma that feminism is best led and guided by white professional women, and that the ultimate goal of feminism should be to elect a woman president.

Hirshman has the audacity to blame the division and misplaced focus (in that feminism didn’t succeed in getting Hillary the Democratic nomination) of the feminist movement  on “intersectionality.” For those not familiar with the term, “intersectionality” refers to the recognition that various forms of oppression rely on and reinforce one another – not exactly a surprise, but apparently something feminists like Hirshman would prefer everyone ignore.

You couldn’t have asked for a more perfect example of white, upper-class, elite feminism than this article. As the villians responsible for feminism’s current crises, Hirshman points her finger at Brownfemipower and Sudy. Not only does she take their quotes out of context, misrepresent Brownfemipower’s criticism of Amanda Marcotte, and doesn’t even bother to contact them directly, but who does she contact and quote? Jessica Valenti (Feministing) and Jill Filipovic (Feministe) as authorities on how feminism has progressed and translates for all 20-somethings, including women of color.  You demons stay over there and shut up while I talk to white women about you. 

It’s ironic that Hirshman defines herself as a “Chris Matthews-inspired Clintonite,” since she understands as much about women of color as Matthews does about anyone who isn’t white, male, and securely within the Washington power elite. By the way, since when is the election of a woman to the presidency the solution to destroying partriarchy? Or anything else to do with justice? I guess it was inspiring when Madeline Albright was Secretary of State. It was also disgusting when she suggested that 500,000 Iraqi children dead as a direct result of U.S./U.K.-enforced sanctions was “worth the price.”

The article is an insult. And while we’ve opened up the floor for pointing fingers, I ask you [Hirshman] to reread your own article and consider how well it bodes for feminism, how your observations have helped unify the movement, and how big a role YOU play in dividing the movement.

But than again, why look at yourself when you can blame those angry dark people? You speak of a more innocent time, when you first received Friedan’s book and knew she was speaking about you and to you. While you fought and protested and worked to strengthen a movement based on equality and reproductive rights, you never imagined that those “crazies” below you would actually want the same, even though they were fighting alongside you. Did you miss that in all your years of being a feminist? Or could you only see women of color as potential hired help in your kitchen (like a good liberal, you’d pay them a higher wage and pat them on the heads for a job well done)?  

Beyond your one-sided world view, there are individuals and groups fighting the original fight, with the understanding that women’s rights means something different for a white professional woman earning over 150k per year, a white single mother hovering at the poverty level, a black woman living in the inner city, and a Latina living in a prison for immigrants. You don’t risk anything focusing on the “last glass ceiling” and putting an elite, corporate white woman in office; try battling steel bars, immigration raids, and concrete jungles.

Finally, the article is poor journalism. I can guarantee that if BrownfemiPower or Sudy wrote an article critical of an entire movement and never bothered to contact anyone in that movement, it would be regarded as shoddy journalism lacking the sophisticated research skills necessary to be taken seriously. I wonder how often we’d see them in print again? What about an article bemoaning the divisions in the feminist movement and putting the blame squarely on white women? Think anyone would take it seriously?

In a way, I feel sorry for Hirshman and her lack of vision. She speaks of her work in the feminist movement yet degrades others for taking up the same fight – our crime is that we are vocal about people who don’t happen to look like Hirshman. How quickly we forget what the feminist movement (supposedly) stands for.

Hirshman notes that the “reform” movements within feminism – focused on issues like race and class – “would have been enough to weaken the movement. But it still could have been like many other reform movements, which manage to remain effective by using such traditional political tools as alliances and compromises. There’s an old-fashioned term for it — ‘log-rolling.’ Put crudely: First I vote for your issue, then you vote for mine.”

The problem with the notion of “first I vote for your issue, then you vote for mine,” Linda Hirshman, is that you never came around to vote for our issues.  We have always been expected to vote on your terms; your interests always come first, and we’re always left waiting.

I’m over waiting in line for the greater good of those who clearly already have. Tired of waiting, patient and subservient, for our turn, for our crumbs to trickle down. I’m out of that line, and getting in the one clearly marked “revolution.”  My hefty Latina bones can’t survive on white bread, so forget the ceiling - I’m kicking down the meat-locker and sharing the wealth with my community. Old, white, or male – you’re welcome to join, but know this: living well means rights, respect, equality, and access to the means of life for everyone, now. Freedom is not given, so I’m taking.

Here’s Brownfemipower’s response to this article.

Here’s Jill Filipovic’s (Feministe) response.