On Women Who Oppose Hillary Clinton: A Conversation With Liza Featherstone
Tuesday, 28 June 2016 00:00 By Dan Falcone and Sasha Silverman, Truthout |
Interview
Hillary Clinton takes a photo with supporters at a campaign stop in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 20, 2016. (Photo: Jared Polin / Flickr)
New York University journalism professor Liza Featherstone is the editor of
False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Verso Books).
She also writes for The Nation, with a focus on labor and student activism.
In this exclusive interview for Truthout, Featherstone builds on the
analysis that she offered to Truthout readers in February, discussing
Hillary Rodham Clinton's status as the presumptive nominee for the
Democratic Party.
For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election
section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016."
Dan Falcone: Recently, MSNBC and CNN highlighted and portrayed the
Democratic nominee as a pioneering feminist of sorts. This coverage is
amplified by Clinton's own comments regarding her personal background and
significance of the female legacies within her family. Some of this is
obviously significant given our nation's history, but how do you categorize
Clinton's usage and application of feminist history to correlate with her
rise and political fame of the last three decades?
Liza Featherstone: The election of the first woman president of the United
States will indeed be historically significant. But at present, Clinton is
using this "milestone" and "breaking the glass ceiling" language to
celebrate the victory of the financial industry's candidate over the one
representing the interests of ordinary people, which to me, is a misuse of
feminism, a complex but often progressive movement.
Falcone: What is the overarching thesis of the book you edited, False
Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton?
Our argument is that while the candidacy of Hillary Clinton is widely
embraced as a feminist project, she has actually dedicated her career to
austerity, state repression and imperialism -- an agenda deeply harmful to
most of the world's women. We hope readers will read this book and be
inspired to work for a far more egalitarian and radical feminism than the
one Clinton represents.
Falcone: Can you explain what you mean by "trickle-down feminism?"
"Trickle-down economics" is the idea that creating wealth for those already
at the top will somehow "trickle down" and benefit the masses. The term is a
derisive one used by critics of mainstream economics, and became especially
popular during the Reagan era. When I use the term "trickle-down feminism,"
I mean the idea that somehow having a few women in power will benefit the
vast majority of women.
Falcone: Often in the book, authors speak of Clinton's paradigm of rescuing
women while supporting policies that place them in danger. Is this the core
problem of a "rescue" complex?
I think the "rescue" paradigm has been an important one and I would
encourage readers to especially check out Margaret Corvid's chapter on
Clinton's record, as secretary of state, of pursuing policies that punish
women for sex work under the rhetorical guise of helping them. I'm glad you
asked about this, because it is a really important chapter that hasn't
received enough attention as some of the others, even though there is a lot
of interest in sex workers' issues right now.
I'd also encourage readers to pick up Yasmin Nair's chapter, in which she
compellingly argues that Clinton negotiates the rocky shoals of being a
female politician by being "tougher" (whether on "criminals" or welfare
recipients at home, or "terrorists" abroad) than a man, while preserving her
feminine image by doing so in the name of [protecting] innocents, often
women and children. Of course, going to war over women's rights, or "amping
up" law enforcement efforts against brothels does precisely what you suggest
in your question -- puts more women in danger.
Sasha Silverman: You publicly stated that you are not voting for Hillary
Clinton, pointing out that she has demonstrated contempt for a hallmark of
social feminism: redistribution. If it's possible to put it into a nutshell,
why do you think redistribution will benefit women? If you could advise
Clinton, and know that she'd take your suggestions seriously, what would you
suggest?
Redistribution will always benefit women because women are more likely to
head households living in poverty. Women are paid less than men on the job
and also have far less personal wealth. So, while the Clinton campaign did
its best this primary season to separate gender from class, they are deeply
intertwined. I would suggest some policies that have been proven to help
women advance: single-payer health care (including guaranteed reproductive
health care -- including, of course, abortion and birth control), higher
minimum wages, universal high quality day care and free college tuition,
along with labor law reform to make it much easier to organize unions.
Those kinds of policies were all part of the Bernie Sanders agenda and it is
clear there is a lot of support for them among voters. But as Frances Fox
Piven points in her chapter, even Sanders was not arguing for the kind of
income supports -- beyond work -- that many women actually need in order to
fulfill care-giving responsibilities, have more bargaining power in a
low-wage job or simply pursue their talents. I would encourage Clinton to
rethink her dedication to eviscerating traditional welfare, especially in
this interesting moment when people around the globe and across the
ideological spectrum are debating a universal basic income.
Silverman: Looking back on all the individuals you've worked with [perhaps
namely in False Choices], is there a story that stands out to you? Or an
individual who has made a lasting impression on you?
I often think of the women I interviewed when I wrote about Walmart. Hillary
Clinton served as a then-token woman on the board of Walmart and never did
anything to address the rampant sex discrimination in that company.
Eventually in 2002, a cashier named Betty Dukes sued the company, in what
became the largest civil rights class-action suit in history. I'm still
close to Betty Dukes; we talk often and she has remained determined to fight
for change for working women. I'm really impressed by her bravery and by her
willingness to fight on for so long. But I often ask myself, "What does a
supposedly 'feminist' politician like Clinton have to offer women like Betty
Dukes?" Ultimately, not that much.
Silverman: Hillary Clinton's "feminism" also fails to grapple seriously with
the intersection of race and gender. Could you touch on how and why Clinton
is so consistently criticized around the issues of race, too?
She should actually be criticized on this a lot more often than she is.
Historian Donna Murch wrote a terrific chapter for False Choices, called
"When Black Lives Didn't Matter," about the way both Clintons advocated for
more policing and harsher incarceration policies during what I'm now calling
the first (since it looks as if we are about to get another) Clinton
administration. Those policies, as we now know, disproportionately affected
Black communities. During this election, a Black Lives Matter protestor
rightly confronted Hillary Clinton for using the racist and dehumanizing
term "superpredator" to describe some young people of color during this
period.
In another chapter of our book, Tressie McMillan Cottom discusses the racist
dog whistling in Hillary's first presidential campaign, in which Clinton
suggested she was the candidate of "hard-working white Americans" and
derided the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., while her husband derided
Obama's campaign as a "fairy tale."
It's interesting to me that so many have assumed that Clinton was the
"intersectional" and more anti-racist candidate despite these things.
Falcone: The Trump base seems to consist of a dangerous mix of populism and
racism, but both Clinton and Sanders both had their own areas of ignorance
on the trail. Neither seemed able to engage Black activists and their
legitimate concerns, and they seemed out of touch with the Black Lives
Matter (BLM) movement. Do you consider these generational gaps or whiteness
gaps, in addition to a disconnect with feminism?
Sanders and the people around him should have been building strong
relationships with Black communities and leaders from the very beginning.
Sanders in the moment responded badly to BLM protesters, and many of his
supporters responded much too defensively. But he ultimately did take many
of their concerns on board. He also got better at talking about the
intersections between racial and economic injustice, though as with gender,
he could have done this better. His campaign was really so short; he had
been governing all these years in Vermont, a mostly white state -- and for
that reason, actually had a lot more sensitivity to the concerns of rural
poor and working-class people than most candidates do -- and just didn't
have enough ties to these communities. Even with the campaign spending a lot
of time getting to know Black leaders and Black voters in South Carolina, he
still lost badly there because they just started doing that too late.
The Clintons, for all their problems, have clearly been building such
relationships for decades. However, Hillary Clinton's own racial problems
were certainly on display often, especially in her response to Black Lives
Matter protesters. She felt so entitled to Black votes, as a longtime
prominent Democrat, that I think criticism from Black people particularly
irked her. It was particularly horrifying when she not only responded
condescendingly to the young woman criticizing her for her "superpredator"
language, but also allowed the woman to be roughly escorted out by security.
What was on display there was not only a racist contempt, but also Clinton's
total fealty to the 1%: She did not want to disturb the wealthy donors'
fancy event with this messy interruption from a marginalized person who
wasn't supposed to matter.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
SASHA SILVERMAN
Sasha Silverman holds a BA in psychology from Gettysburg College. She has a
passion for education. She taught English overseas, both in Japan and Ghana,
and to international students at CSC Institute in Philadelphia and at the
Academy of the New Church in Bryn Athyn, Pennsylvania. She is the mother of
two, a drummer in an extremely unpolished, but fun band, a long-boarder and
an artist.
DAN FALCONE
Dan Falcone has a master's degree in modern US history from LaSalle
University in Philadelphia and currently teaches secondary education. He has
interviewed Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Richard Falk, William Blum, Medea
Benjamin and Lawrence Davidson. He resides in Washington, DC.
RELATED STORIES
Hillary Clinton's Faux Feminism
By Liza Featherstone, Truthout | Op-Ed
Hillary Clinton's Business of Corporate Shilling and War-Making
By Abby Martin, teleSUR | Video Report
Hillary Clinton: The Neocon in Democrat's Clothing
By Pierre Guerlain, Truthout | Op-Ed
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
On Women Who Oppose Hillary Clinton: A Conversation With Liza Featherstone
Tuesday, 28 June 2016 00:00 By Dan Falcone and Sasha Silverman, Truthout |
Interview
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
. Hillary Clinton takes a photo with supporters at a campaign stop in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 20, 2016. (Photo: Jared Polin / Flickr)
. New York University journalism professor Liza Featherstone is the
editor of False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Verso
Books). She also writes for The Nation, with a focus on labor and student
activism. In this exclusive interview for Truthout, Featherstone builds on
the analysis that she offered to Truthout readers in February, discussing
Hillary Rodham Clinton's status as the presumptive nominee for the
Democratic Party.
For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election
section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016."
Dan Falcone: Recently, MSNBC and CNN highlighted and portrayed the
Democratic nominee as a pioneering feminist of sorts. This coverage is
amplified by Clinton's own comments regarding her personal background and
significance of the female legacies within her family. Some of this is
obviously significant given our nation's history, but how do you categorize
Clinton's usage and application of feminist history to correlate with her
rise and political fame of the last three decades?
Liza Featherstone: The election of the first woman president of the United
States will indeed be historically significant. But at present, Clinton is
using this "milestone" and "breaking the glass ceiling" language to
celebrate the victory of the financial industry's candidate over the one
representing the interests of ordinary people, which to me, is a misuse of
feminism, a complex but often progressive movement.
Falcone: What is the overarching thesis of the book you edited, False
Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton?
Our argument is that while the candidacy of Hillary Clinton is widely
embraced as a feminist project, she has actually dedicated her career to
austerity, state repression and imperialism -- an agenda deeply harmful to
most of the world's women. We hope readers will read this book and be
inspired to work for a far more egalitarian and radical feminism than the
one Clinton represents.
Falcone: Can you explain what you mean by "trickle-down feminism?"
"Trickle-down economics" is the idea that creating wealth for those already
at the top will somehow "trickle down" and benefit the masses. The term is a
derisive one used by critics of mainstream economics, and became especially
popular during the Reagan era. When I use the term "trickle-down feminism,"
I mean the idea that somehow having a few women in power will benefit the
vast majority of women.
Falcone: Often in the book, authors speak of Clinton's paradigm of rescuing
women while supporting policies that place them in danger. Is this the core
problem of a "rescue" complex?
I think the "rescue" paradigm has been an important one and I would
encourage readers to especially check out Margaret Corvid's chapter on
Clinton's record, as secretary of state, of pursuing policies that punish
women for sex work under the rhetorical guise of helping them. I'm glad you
asked about this, because it is a really important chapter that hasn't
received enough attention as some of the others, even though there is a lot
of interest in sex workers' issues right now.
I'd also encourage readers to pick up Yasmin Nair's chapter, in which she
compellingly argues that Clinton negotiates the rocky shoals of being a
female politician by being "tougher" (whether on "criminals" or welfare
recipients at home, or "terrorists" abroad) than a man, while preserving her
feminine image by doing so in the name of [protecting] innocents, often
women and children. Of course, going to war over women's rights, or "amping
up" law enforcement efforts against brothels does precisely what you suggest
in your question -- puts more women in danger.
Sasha Silverman: You publicly stated that you are not voting for Hillary
Clinton, pointing out that she has demonstrated contempt for a hallmark of
social feminism: redistribution. If it's possible to put it into a nutshell,
why do you think redistribution will benefit women? If you could advise
Clinton, and know that she'd take your suggestions seriously, what would you
suggest?
Redistribution will always benefit women because women are more likely to
head households living in poverty. Women are paid less than men on the job
and also have far less personal wealth. So, while the Clinton campaign did
its best this primary season to separate gender from class, they are deeply
intertwined. I would suggest some policies that have been proven to help
women advance: single-payer health care (including guaranteed reproductive
health care -- including, of course, abortion and birth control), higher
minimum wages, universal high quality day care and free college tuition,
along with labor law reform to make it much easier to organize unions.
Those kinds of policies were all part of the Bernie Sanders agenda and it is
clear there is a lot of support for them among voters. But as Frances Fox
Piven points in her chapter, even Sanders was not arguing for the kind of
income supports -- beyond work -- that many women actually need in order to
fulfill care-giving responsibilities, have more bargaining power in a
low-wage job or simply pursue their talents. I would encourage Clinton to
rethink her dedication to eviscerating traditional welfare, especially in
this interesting moment when people around the globe and across the
ideological spectrum are debating a universal basic income.
Silverman: Looking back on all the individuals you've worked with [perhaps
namely in False Choices], is there a story that stands out to you? Or an
individual who has made a lasting impression on you?
I often think of the women I interviewed when I wrote about Walmart. Hillary
Clinton served as a then-token woman on the board of Walmart and never did
anything to address the rampant sex discrimination in that company.
Eventually in 2002, a cashier named Betty Dukes sued the company, in what
became the largest civil rights class-action suit in history. I'm still
close to Betty Dukes; we talk often and she has remained determined to fight
for change for working women. I'm really impressed by her bravery and by her
willingness to fight on for so long. But I often ask myself, "What does a
supposedly 'feminist' politician like Clinton have to offer women like Betty
Dukes?" Ultimately, not that much.
Silverman: Hillary Clinton's "feminism" also fails to grapple seriously with
the intersection of race and gender. Could you touch on how and why Clinton
is so consistently criticized around the issues of race, too?
She should actually be criticized on this a lot more often than she is.
Historian Donna Murch wrote a terrific chapter for False Choices, called
"When Black Lives Didn't Matter," about the way both Clintons advocated for
more policing and harsher incarceration policies during what I'm now calling
the first (since it looks as if we are about to get another) Clinton
administration. Those policies, as we now know, disproportionately affected
Black communities. During this election, a Black Lives Matter protestor
rightly confronted Hillary Clinton for using the racist and dehumanizing
term "superpredator" to describe some young people of color during this
period.
In another chapter of our book, Tressie McMillan Cottom discusses the racist
dog whistling in Hillary's first presidential campaign, in which Clinton
suggested she was the candidate of "hard-working white Americans" and
derided the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., while her husband derided
Obama's campaign as a "fairy tale."
It's interesting to me that so many have assumed that Clinton was the
"intersectional" and more anti-racist candidate despite these things.
Falcone: The Trump base seems to consist of a dangerous mix of populism and
racism, but both Clinton and Sanders both had their own areas of ignorance
on the trail. Neither seemed able to engage Black activists and their
legitimate concerns, and they seemed out of touch with the Black Lives
Matter (BLM) movement. Do you consider these generational gaps or whiteness
gaps, in addition to a disconnect with feminism?
Sanders and the people around him should have been building strong
relationships with Black communities and leaders from the very beginning.
Sanders in the moment responded badly to BLM protesters, and many of his
supporters responded much too defensively. But he ultimately did take many
of their concerns on board. He also got better at talking about the
intersections between racial and economic injustice, though as with gender,
he could have done this better. His campaign was really so short; he had
been governing all these years in Vermont, a mostly white state -- and for
that reason, actually had a lot more sensitivity to the concerns of rural
poor and working-class people than most candidates do -- and just didn't
have enough ties to these communities. Even with the campaign spending a lot
of time getting to know Black leaders and Black voters in South Carolina, he
still lost badly there because they just started doing that too late.
The Clintons, for all their problems, have clearly been building such
relationships for decades. However, Hillary Clinton's own racial problems
were certainly on display often, especially in her response to Black Lives
Matter protesters. She felt so entitled to Black votes, as a longtime
prominent Democrat, that I think criticism from Black people particularly
irked her. It was particularly horrifying when she not only responded
condescendingly to the young woman criticizing her for her "superpredator"
language, but also allowed the woman to be roughly escorted out by security.
What was on display there was not only a racist contempt, but also Clinton's
total fealty to the 1%: She did not want to disturb the wealthy donors'
fancy event with this messy interruption from a marginalized person who
wasn't supposed to matter.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Sasha Silverman
Sasha Silverman holds a BA in psychology from Gettysburg College. She has a
passion for education. She taught English overseas, both in Japan and Ghana,
and to international students at CSC Institute in Philadelphia and at the
Academy of the New Church in Bryn Athyn, Pennsylvania. She is the mother of
two, a drummer in an extremely unpolished, but fun band, a long-boarder and
an artist.
Dan Falcone
Dan Falcone has a master's degree in modern US history from LaSalle
University in Philadelphia and currently teaches secondary education. He has
interviewed Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Richard Falk, William Blum, Medea
Benjamin and Lawrence Davidson. He resides in Washington, DC.
Related Stories
Hillary Clinton's Faux Feminism
By Liza Featherstone, Truthout | Op-EdHillary Clinton's Business of
Corporate Shilling and War-Making
By Abby Martin, teleSUR | Video ReportHillary Clinton: The Neocon in
Democrat's Clothing
By Pierre Guerlain, Truthout | Op-Ed
Show Comments
