Couldn’t someone say Obama divided feminists because he appeals to some and not others? You can’t have a rift unless you had unity before. Anyone who thinks the feminist movement ever marched in lock step needs to read some history. Reed doesn’t blame Obama or his supporters for any of the campaign’s sexism.
She makes the point, as have many others, that people should not say one form of oppression is worse than another. But I don’t see the people who say this trashing those who think racism is worse than sexism. Shouldn’t it work both ways?
If Reed is wrong, then she and other Obama supporters are the ones creating harmful divisions in feminism and the Democratic Party. For the sake of argument, however, let’s say she’s right. If one oppression is no worse than another, why would racist attacks on Obama be worse than sexist attacks on Clinton? One answer is that racism is trickier, according to Reed. Is it not possible that coded, insidious, tricky sexism exists, too? Why should we assume all sexism is out in the open?
