Sexism In The Peace Movement Is Alive And Well–Antiwar.com Invisibilizes Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney
A little piece of history by way of an intro to this post…the Feminist Peace Network was originally founded as my personal response to the blatant sexism that I was encountering in the peace/anti-war movement in late 2001. Sadly, it would appear that arrogant misogyny is still with us. Read on:
Several days ago, Amee Chew, a longtime member of the Feminist Peace Network sent an alert to our discussion list regarding an advertisement that Antiwar.com was running on their homepage. The ad, which has since been removed (see below) contained the following graphic showing presidential candidates McCain, Obama, Barr and Nader:
The accompanying text read in part:
“Our job at Antiwar.com is to examine the candidates’ positions through the lens of anti-interventionism, subjecting them to the most thorough scrutiny. Yes, we have our opinions, but our institutional role is primarily informative. We don’t endorse candidates; we just seek to help our readers answer the most important question of the day: Will we be a global empire, or a free people again?
Alas, no candidate will be our salvation. There is no messiah on the ballot who will lead us directly to the promised land of peace and nonintervention. But this particular election is nonetheless important, and it’s essential for an independent, principled organization to hold the candidates’ feet to the fire. That organization is Antiwar.com.”
There was only one slight problem–the blatantly omission the Honorable Cynthia McKinney, candidate for the Green Party.
After writing to Antiwar.com to protest the ad, another FPN member, Susan G. S. McGee, received an an unsigned response that read,
“It is not sexism, we really didn’t think we need to hold her feet to the fire, she is pretty perfect on foreign policy.”
Gee sorry, we don’t buy it. Remember what the copy on the ad said–”Alas, no candidate will be our salvation.” That kind of implies that McKinney’s exclusion was just that because if she is “pretty perfect” then she should be lauded for that in the ad.
McGee penned the following response to their response:
“Any time you portray four men as the presidential candidates (and two of them from minority parties), and not picture the female candidate…that’s sexism…
If, in fact you think she is “pretty perfect” on foreign policy, you should have put a box up with that statement “The reason Cynthia McKinney is not pictured is because we feel she is
pretty perfect on foreign policy”Also, when I am told I am being sexist (or racist or homophobic), I always seriously consider the person’s comments, acknowledge them, and think about HOW sexism (or racism or homophobia) played a role in my decision-making or statements. I suggest you consider doing the same.”
To which she received the following reply from Antiwar.com:
“One problem is that there are so many people running this year, and I wasn’t even sure we should have pictured Barr and Nader, but I let the editorial director make the decision. It may have been a mistake.
I really don’t think it was sexism or racism, I am a big fan of McKinney. It is unfortunate that she is not getting more coverage and we may be playing into the thinking that has caused this problem.
That page is now history, but I will consider writing an apology on the blog.
Thank you for pointing out my faulty thinking.”
Sorry but yes indeed it was sexist and racist, here is McGee’s reply:
“Thank you for taking the time to respond and to consider my comments. I would appreciate if you would also forward this response to your colleagues.
If you put up a website, and the picture is of four men (two major, two minor) who are presidential candidates, and you exclude a woman of color who is seen by anti-war activists as a candidate with exciting ideas……that is making women, and women of color invisible…in an important visual way. People respond more to the visual than the written in this day and age.
It sounds like you are saying (please correct me if I’m wrong) that you don’t think it was sexism or racism because you admire Ms. McKinney. And I hear that it was not you (individually) who made that decision.
I think we all must understand that sexism and racism happens daily. It’s a daily fact of life for women and people of color. It’s not unusual. For any of us to make a woman, or a person of color, invisible is business as usual given the level of indoctrination we all have received about the privilege and importance of men and white people. For example, I was shocked when some progressives did not immediately acknowledge the disgusting sexism directed against Senator Clinton and the vile racism directed against Senator Obama.
The intention of white people and men is really not the important issue…the EFFECT of actions on people of color and women is…..
I’d like to see you and the staff acknowledge that on the web…and perhaps post and run some analysis.”
———-
Cynthia McKinney is a shero. At huge personal cost, she refuses to back down from speaking truth in the face of power. For that we are not surprised that she is silenced by the mainstream powers that be, silencing is all too common a fate for women who stand up for what is right.
It is also a terrible indictment of our two party system that places women like Condi Rice, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi in the spotlight, with the mainstream feminist community swallowing about half of their principles to support Clinton despite her support for the Iraq war and Pelosi who has no qualms about drilling offshore and refuses to consider impeachment while our Constitution is being torn asunder.
Women like McKinney are drummed out of that system and marginalized into silence. But it is far more reprehensible that the so called liberal left anti-war movement is guilty of the same silencing because it is precisely women like Cynthia McKinney who need to be heard if we really hope to achieve peace.
Please contact Antiwar. com and let them know that invisibilizing Cynthia McKinney in their ad was unacceptable. While we appreciate that they promptly took down the ad after its inappropriate exclusion was pointed out to them, we hope that they will indeed address this on their blog (including a public apology to McKinney) and perhaps revamp the ad to point out that McKinney is indeed an antiwar shero.
Many thanks to both Amee Chew and Susan G.S. McGee for their work on this issue.
Lucinda Marshall, Founder and Director
Feminist Peace Network
Filed under: Uncategorized, Action Alerts, Sheroes, U.S. Politics, Misogyny
[…] fyi, see the old page here: http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/08/17/sexism-in-the-peace-movement-is-alive-and-well-antiwarcom-invisibilizes-presidential-candidate-cynthia-mckinney/ […]
The pattern of leaving out Cynthia McKinney is part of the sexism and racism ingrained into progressive institutions and third party politics. Alternative parties should address this, to build the coalitions needed to have a broader impact.
McKinney’s is such an important perspective to bring to the debate — it’s a shame that the institutional sexism and racism among progressives is keeping people like her out. Barack and Hillary should not have the monopoly on what a non-white-male candidacy means! We need voices like McKinney’s to reclaim what it means to have a woman candidate, especially when gender is used as a wedge issue to reinforce racism, etc.
I won’t go into detail but believe the story of McKinney’s candidacy is rife with internal sexist and racist biases in the alternative parties. Why did certain Green Party leaders hold a place open for Nader even though he had declined to run with them? Why aren’t prominent names like Nader helping build someone like McKinney up? Is that the kind of leadership that contributes to movement-building?
When Nader ran in 2004, I supported his candidacy but was disappointed that his position on “women’s issues” was an afterthought, a statement taken from NOW. Which was completely liberal, “rights” focused — even though the most important thing about Nader’s political positions is when he moves beyond “rights” and “equal opportunity” in the case of so many other issues, to draw our attention to problems of actual access, the need for economic redistribution around human needs. I.e. true universal healthcare.
So when will we have a party platform that includes universal reproductive healthcare, not the mere “right” to choose? Or real welfare, not just the “right” to sue for work and equal pay? Etc. It’s just a beginning.
The issue of women being ignored–even vilified–by so-called “progressives” enrages me. I used to be a regular reader of Counterpunch. It finally got to the point that I couldn’t take the anti-female, anti-feminist stance that their regular contributors took in one article after another. We were told that women shouldn’t worry about sexism–our concerns were with the men of our own social classes. We were told that Obama had to face the horror of being called racist names; no one mentioned that women are called whore, bitch, slut on a daily basis. Hell, one anti-HRC group used the acronym “C.U.N.T.” to identify itself. The outrage from the “left” was non-existent.
This is nothing new. After all, how often are we told to fight the U.S. attitudes towards Muslims, but to ignore the fact that many Muslim-dominated countries impose some of the most misogynist laws in the modern world? We are told to fight the Western imperialism and exploitation aimed at Africa, but to ignore FGM. We are told to fight for the rights of Latin American immigrants, but to ignore the machismo and misogyny of traditional Catholic societies. We are told to fight against racial profiling of black and Latino men in the U.S., but to ignore the “anger” expressed in popular rap lyrics. That “anger,” of course, is often aimed at women–you know, hos and bitches. We are told taht is it an issue of “human rights” if a man is tortured, but one of “culture” if a woman is.
What I want to know is why we can’t attack both sides of those issues. Why are we supposed to take up only those issues identified by male-dominated “progressive” organizations as valid?
I voted McKinney-Clemente this year. I hear all the celebrating over the first Black male president tonight. How many of those people even knew that a Black woman was running? How many cared?