Two Feminist Perspectives by Peggy Cooper Davis and Carol Gilligan

Finding a Feminist Voice
We are an African-American feminist and a Jewish-American feminist. Each of us
believes that the ongoing presidential campaign is of monumental significance. National polls, the Iowa and Nevada caucuses and the New Hampshire primary all suggest that racial and sexual domination have been sufficiently overcome that an African-American man and a woman are both electable presidential candidates. Will one of them prevail?

Or will they be divided and conquered?

When blacks and white feminists divided famously in the Nineteenth Century, the issue
was whether to support giving the vote to black men but not to women. In that context, we think Sojourner Truth had good reason to argue for “keeping the thing. . . stirring” until the vote was given to all. But this is not a one-or-both affair (at least not now).

Only one person can be the Democratic nominee. What does a good feminist do?
The election of a woman president would do much to unseat the stereotypes that make it
hard for us to imagine women at the center of political power – and hard for us to vote to put them there. And it would help us lift the veil of impossibility that clouds the vision of too many women and girls. Perhaps, then, we should support Hillary Clinton.

But perhaps it is wrong to stand against gender bias without standing against other
equally unjustifiable forms of bias. Knowing too well the evils of gender prejudice,
feminists have also been critical of other forms of prejudice. We condemn racism,
xenophobia and homophobia just as we condemn sexism.

Perhaps we should take a stand against racism and xenophobia by supporting Barack
Obama. Were his the face of the United States, it would be easier for us to interact with other nations as a multicultural democracy rather than as a behemoth. And his election would do much to help us lift the veil of impossibility that clouds the vision of too many children of color.

How do we choose which form of prejudice to oppose?

Some argue that feminists should support Clinton for the simple reason that sexual
stereotypes are more potent than racial stereotypes. This reasoning is too simple. We agree that sexual stereotypes are more potent than racial stereotypes; they are engrained from infancy and engrained in ways that give them special psychological power. But sexism is not only about the perpetuation of stereotypes. It is also about a gender-based corruption of public life.

Little boys are encouraged, on pain of Oedipal tragedy, to separate from their mothers
and compete in public worlds that seem more about survival than care. Little girls are encouraged to be nurturers in domestic realms. In public realms, women and girls get mixed signals: we are expected to accept a nurturing role, to toughen up and compete, or to invent ourselves as hybrids. In this patriarchal story, love and care come to be thought of as feminine, domestic qualities, and detached calculation and competitive assertion come to be thought of as masculine, public qualities.
Sexism is double barreled. It inures us to stereotypes that empower men and limit
women, and it also inures us to a public culture of detachment and competition. As
feminists, we are sensitive not only to the evils of gender stereotyping but also to the human tragedies that result when detached competitiveness is the principal strategy for addressing public issues. Yes, feminism should be about challenging gender stereotypes.

And, yes, gender stereotypes are uniquely potent. But feminism should also be about
bringing human concern and relational intelligence to bear in public life. The capacity for dispassionate judgment and the will to survive are important to all human endeavors. But so are the capacity for empathy and the ability to cooperate. When we choose between Clinton and Obama, it is not enough to ask which choice shatters the more potent stereotype. We must ask which choice best combines the opportunity to shatter stereotypes and the opportunity to bring empathy and cooperation to public
decisionmaking.

Where does this leave us? It leaves us with the realization that furthering feminist values is not as simple as voting invariably for female candidates. Our feminism causes us to appreciate rather than denigrate Hillary Clinton for bringing a new and less detached voice to politics. But our feminism also causes us to appreciate rather than denigrate Barack Obama’s message of cooperation and common purpose. It causes us to lean differently in this election, but it counsels us not to let disagreement make us disagreeable.
Peggy Cooper Davis is the Shad Professor of Lawyering and Ethics at New York University. She is editing a book about Carol Gilligan’s relational psychology. Carol Gilligan is a University Professor at New York University. She is the author of In a Different Voice, The Birth of Pleasure and Kira.