HELLO TO ALL THIS: A Feminist Response to Robin Morgan

I have long been proud to call myself a feminist. Robin Morgan is among my heroes. Her justly famous 1970 essay “Goodbye to All That” [1] is a wonderful, powerful statement that I have quoted in my writings and use in classes. At the beginning of February, Ms. Morgan wrote a new piece titled “Goodbye to All That (#2)." [2] This article, which has been widely circulated via email, is an attempt to convince feminists that they must support Hillary Clinton.

Not content to offer positive reasons for supporting Hillary Clinton, Ms. Morgan attacks Barack Obama. Beginning a piece by referring to Obama by the initials “BO” is, it seems to me, not the best way to win friends and influence people.

Let me stipulate that it is clearly the case that sexism is much deeper and much more entrenched than racism. Indeed, sexism is the model upon which racism and all other forms of domination/subordination are based. That is the essence of the argument I make in my book Eve’s Seed [3] and one that I continue in my forthcoming book, Grand Theft Jesus [4]. It is also certainly true, as Ms. Morgan says, that more women than men are enslaved today and that women in general have, over the course of history, suffered even more than racial minorities. In principle, then, I would prefer the more radical step of electing a woman as United States president to that of electing an African American.

But I would hope that this principle doesn’t mean, as Morgan comes very close to saying, that we, as feminists, should vote for ANY woman and that any woman is preferable to any man. She does note that it was not proper to support Elizabeth Dole’s presidential aspirations and by implication she also indicates that she would not favor electing someone like Margaret Thatcher. But what, after all, does her clever closing line—“I'm voting for Hillary not because she's a woman—but because I am”—mean?

It is also true that in many quarters sexist comments continue to be more acceptable than racist comments. Morgan, however, manipulates that fact by hiding in the passive voice to say, “When a sexist idiot screamed ‘Iron my shirt!’ at HRC, it was considered amusing.” By whom? Certainly not by me. And I heard a good deal of outrage expressed by television commentators about the idiot’s outburst.

Other examples of disgusting misogyny that Morgan cites are just that. But does the fact that idiots say horrible things about Hillary and that those horrible things are usually in fact anti-woman, not just anti-Clinton, mean that we must vote for her regardless of the situation or who the other candidate is?

For anyone to call Hillary-supporting black feminists “race traitors” is despicable. But isn’t Morgan coming close to calling feminists who support Obama “sex traitors”?

And then, in the midst of some comments that are largely justified, Morgan essentially equates Barack Obama with George W. Bush! Linking him with W is a far greater insult than referring to him as BO. “Goodbye,” she writes, “to the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.” Need we remind her that the destruction was brought on not simply by the cocky, arrogant president who bellowed, “Bring it on!” but by precisely the most experienced and supposedly knowledgeable people—Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al.—and that, between the two finalists for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, it was the inexperienced one who opposed that path into destruction while the experienced one was giving that same George W. Bush the authority to proceed on the path to destruction?

The question we ought to be debating is who is the better person for the job. In order to do so, we need to say goodbye to several of the tactics Morgan employs in her new essay:

Goodbye to using “Duh” as sufficient means of concluding one’s case [“She’s better qualified. (D'uh.)”].

Goodbye to arguing, in so many words, that your candidate is astute and then degrading the candidate you oppose because he is astute.

Goodbye to guilt by association (some of the Kennedys and Ted Sorensen).

Goodbye to guilt without association (Roger Stone, Carl Bernstein, John McCain, South Park writers, misogynist pigs with OJ tee shirts, etc.) None of that is connected with Barack Obama or those who support him.

Goodbye to such ageist arguments (while condemning ageism of the opposite sort) as saying that the “vision and spirit” of someone in his mid-40s need to be “seasoned by practical know-how” before he should try to change the world. Does Ms. Morgan forget how effectively she and others were working at changing the world when they were in their 20s? Is it not usually the case that one’s vision and spirit are clouded and beaten down by years of “seasoning” in Washington? When did “Don’t trust anyone over 30” become “Don’t trust anyone under 50”? What has become of the wonderful young radical Robin Morgan used to be?

Goodbye to feminists stooping to the divide and deride tactics that have been used against us and against women in general for millennia.

Hello to all this: Feminists being free to support whichever candidate they believe is best for the nation and the world at a given time. We can debate who that candidate is without belittling each other or either candidate, both of whom have significant strengths for progressives and feminists.

{Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts & Letters and Professor of History at Millsaps College. His latest book, Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America [4], will be published by Crown in March.}