On “feminism” and media representation

This entire article really has me scratching my head: Feminist Pitch for a Democrat Named Obama.

The problem is that while the Times uses the word “feminist” many times, Obama doesn’t. Not once. And there are other problems, too: like the fact that not a single feminist issue is mentioned (unless you count describing one of the women quoted an “abortion rights leader”).  There’s also the fact that feminism is never defined, but apparently manages to evoke some pretty mysterious concepts. Such as this one:

Around the country, but especially in the early voting states, many of these women are engaged in a complicated conversation, with a hunger to make history often pushing them in one direction while more conventional considerations, like a candidate’s stand on the war in Iraq, pushing them in another.

Okay. Well, I will admit that the question of whether or not to back Hillary Clinton has not been an easy one for feminists. Though it wasn’t hard for me to decide that she wasn’t my favorite candidate, it also wasn’t easy coming to terms with the fact that there’s a strong, viable female candidate standing there and I want one of the men to beat her in the primary. I’m glad that the Times discussed this, because I think that for those women who do identify as feminist and yet don’t see Clinton as their first choice, it is/was an issue.

But what the fuck is all of this nonsense about how the only reason a woman would vote for Clinton is because they want to “make history?” They can’t love the set of genitals she’s carrying and her Iraq policy? Personally, I don’t like her policy. But it’s utterly insane to suggest that no one else does. The idea that all, or even most women who are backing Clinton are doing so purely because they like her gender is pretty damn anti-feminist.

As for what Obama’s feminist credentials are, well, the article doesn’t really explain that too clearly — and since Obama clearly hasn’t tried to position himself as a feminist, it makes sense that they couldn’t come up with any real meat to the story. There is something about how he claims to like “strong women.” Oh, and he talks about his mother, wife and two daughters a lot. This is fun, because it more or less positions feminists, if not all women, as either a.) considering a candidate’s gender to be the most important part of their voting decisions or b.) considering how much a candidate talks about his or her mom to be the most important part of their voting decisions. Those are two great choices, wouldn’t you say? [I'm looking for a candidate who will strongly support and expand women's reproductive freedoms, institute universal health care and do something drastic and meaningful about global warming, myself. But who am I kidding? Those two daughters are awful cute!]

But when the article tries to construct Obama as a “post-feminist” candidate, even though the term clearly doesn’t mean what they think it means, things get really funny:

The Obama campaign is, in some ways, subtly marketing its candidate as a post-feminist man, a generation beyond the gender conflicts of the boomers. In the video released this week, Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, says that Mr. Obama understands issues of concern to women “in his gut,” not as “a kind of pandering.” The writer Alice Walker describes Mr. Obama as “someone who honors the feminine values of caring for all.”

Because what feminists were looking for all along was to be pandered to, not genuinely considered a part of society and politics. And Obama, with his radical post-feminist ways is going against that. How brave. Or something.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that Obama lost any feminist credentials he might have had when he made these comments accusing Clinton of playing the “gender card” and suggesting himself superior because he doesn’t feel the need to talk about his race. First of all, someone who’s going to claim that his female opponent is unfairly using her gender as leverage, particularly when she didn’t, is dubious at best. Once you get into the whole confusingly mixed vibe that fits somewhere between “well yeah, we’re both oppressed, but talking about it isn’t going to fix anything” and “oppression? What oppression?” . . . well. It’s kind of over.

But I think that more than anything, I’m really intrigued by the very usage of the word “feminist” throughout this article. It seems to be completely meaningless. But are we to be angry at that, or grateful that the media is finally portraying feminists in a non-threatening and non-hysterical light? Should we be happy about an appearance in the mainstream, or really pissed that our issues still weren’t addressed? And is tagging Democratic candidates with the word “feminist”– even though there’s no basis behind it — really just going to end up as fodder for Republicans and all of those who fear and/or mock feminism?

What the hell do you think the writer was trying to do here? I can’t figure it out, but I’m also not coming from a neutral or uninformed place with regard to these issues. So tell me: was it successful or just plain embarrassing?