A Plea to Feminists

I speak to college activists when I say: In these coming months as we decide which presidential candidate to vote for, please, I beg of you, do not vote on one issue.\nTo be more specific: Feminists – my comrades – don’t vote for Hillary Clinton just because she’s a woman and pro-choice. \nThis is an appeal from my heart. While an undergraduate student, I was heavily involved in feminist activist groups on IU’s campus. \nI know that college activism survives primarily by invoking ideology. The “ism” of feminism, environmentalism or labor activism implies a lucid, sexy set of issues, whereas a group called “Students for a Single Payer Health Care System,” just doesn’t inflame our revolutionary spirits. \nAlthough “isms” are useful for maintaining group identity, organizing issues coherently, raising awareness about specific issues, and maintaining activists’ enthusiasm, getting too wrapped up in an “ism” can also obscure the political landscape.\nLike all “ists,” feminists get wrapped up in a couple of central issues. Defending reproductive rights, raising awareness about sexual violence and expanding concepts of gender and sexuality are our main crusades. Perhaps our most visible issue, and the one that everyone seems to have an opinion about, is abortion.\nUnlike many feminists, I do not believe that the legality of Roe v. Wade is teetering dangerously on the edge of a crazy pro-life cliff. True, abortion access is continually restricted, the Supreme Court is full of right-wingers, state legislatures propose bills that become voting initiatives to ban abortion (as in South Dakota in 2006), and the anti-abortion evangelicals have risen in policy-making power over the last seven years.\nBut I would still say that the legality of abortion has only been pushed a little closer to the cliff, and is not in danger of falling off. Most of this country still supports a woman’s right to abortion, and a lot right-wing judicial ‘activism’ would have to take place for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. \nStill, some feminists would disagree with me, and base their vote on whether or not a candidate is pro-choice, and to what degree. \nIn terms of pro-choiceness, Hillary Clinton currently takes the cake. First of all, she is a woman, which, for some radical feminists, is a pre-requisite for having an opinion on abortion. Secondly, in the ’90s Clinton was the very image of a self-realized Second Waver. She was pro-choice, pro-woman and pro-social services. Thirdly, she normally uses feminist language when discussing the issue itself; for Clinton, abortion remains explicitly a woman’s choice, not, as even Obama has suggested, a woman‘s choice that also concerns her family and clergy. \nBut these are not reasons to vote for her. There are bigger issues at stake in this election than abortion.\nThat is why we must remove our “ism” blinders for a moment and look at the bigger picture. \nFeminists: What does Clinton want to do with Iraq? Iran? Healthcare? Global warming? These should be our first questions. Abortion comes after.