The Need for a White Women’s SheforShe Campaign
In September 2014, the United Nations began a global solidarity initiative to bring awareness to gender inequality. This campaign was spearheaded after actress Emma Watson addressed a session of the United Nations as it became increasingly evident that women’s efforts alone were not enough to bring about the political, economic, social, and educational changes that women across the globe need to have equality with men.
Thus, the HeforShe initiative was born. Instead of women leading the charge for their empowerment and inequality, HeforShe is intended to be led by men with the inclusion of all genders. Some people may find this odd. Why would women want men to take the lead on such an initiative? Wouldn’t this appear to indicate that women are not capable of engaging in agency to address the issues that they believe result in them having an unequal status in societies? Isn’t this just another indication of men’s power and women’s lack of power? Some may view it in this manner. However, others may take a different perspective on the concept that men can and should take the lead. And this is because if men are in positions of power in the economic, educational, legal, and other sectors, they should be the ones who are more than capable of creating an environment that will foster equality for women. They are the ones who are gatekeepers in terms of who gets hired, fired, promoted, capital to start businesses, denied credit and loans, sits on corporate boards, admitted into higher education at all levels, access to healthcare, appointed to the national courts, elected to state and local offices, and Congress and parliaments. And finally, for the purposes of this essay, if men with power determine who our next president will be, wouldn’t it make sense that men in general, and white men in particular, should mount a HeforShe campaign for VP Kamala Harris?
On one hand, it should make sense because equality for all appears to be a centerpiece of her campaign to date. On the other hand, it doesn’t make sense. Why? They have had decades to take the lead not just for African American women and women from other marginalized groups in addressing issues that affect them based on their gender, race, and ethnicity. Furthermore, there are many issues that white men could have advanced to bring about equality for white women and they did not. White men and women who embrace the values and policies of the Republican party are in no position to jump on a HeforShe bandwagon. However, all is not lost because as we have witnessed in the last several days, white women regardless of their party affiliations may see an opportunity to forge alliances and build a coalition that will result in the election of VP Harris. I am calling this a SheforShe Campaign led by white women. I am not arguing that this is the only campaign that is needed. Rather, I am arguing that this is the time, and it would be beneficial for white women, men, Black women, and other women of color. Why is this time?
When White Women Did Not Do the Right Thing
First, it is time that white women step up and take a stand on the plight of Black women in this country. They have had decades to do this and with few exceptions, if any, they have not. A couple of historical examples will serve to illustrate my point. However, it is worth noting the role and importance of white women in the abolitionist movement regardless of how they viewed the humanity and equality of enslaved Africans. At least, they believed and fought for the end of this nefarious institution. In addition, there were many instances of inter-racial cooperation, that include white women, in the fight to end slavery, and obtain women’s rights, and during the Civil Rights Movement.
The onset of the Civil War served to postpone most efforts to achieve women’s right as the need to have all hands-on deck to secure victory for the Union troops took precedence over women’s suffrage.
When the 15th amendment was added to the US Constitution in 1870, white women argued vehemently that they and not the former enslaved Black men should be given the right to vote. Their argument was that they were more deserving; they were literate and therefore were more competent to engage in civic affairs. In other words, the Reconstruction Era witnessed an upending of the coalition between white women and their drive for women’s rights and Black people’s struggle for citizenship and equality. Moreover, it fundamentally manifested the very deep extent of white women’s racism toward Black people in general and Black men in particular. Two quotes from the leading women’s rights advocates illustrate this point. Elizabeth Cady Stanton argued that Black men needed extensive education in civics and politics. She stated that it was, “a serious question we had better stand aside and see ‘Sambo’ walk into the kingdom of [civil rights] first. Susan B. Anthony shared the same sentiment when she stated” if you do not give the whole loaf of suffrage to the entire people, give it to the most intelligent first. If intelligence, justice and mortality are to have precedence in government, let the question of women brought up first and the Negro last.” Although these women came from an abolitionist background, their empathy and compassion for Black people when it came to equality ended there. It was the right thing to do in terms of ending slavery, but it was a different story when it came to where they would fit into electorate if at all.
Second, the suffrage movement and several now famous or infamous members, depending on one’s viewpoint, were racist. The one that comes to mind is Susan B. Anthony who fought tooth and nail for white women to get the right to vote, but she could not bring herself to do the same for Black women. Her eyes were firmly on the franchise prize for white women to the extent that she did not want to offend southern white women. Therefore, Black women were excluded from conventions and meetings. Ida B. Wells-Barnette served as her nemesis. Wells-Barnett took every opportunity to outsmart Anthony and other white suffragists in their attempts to “keep Black women in their place.” This incident is worth noting in an effort to remind Black women that the road that has led us to VP Harris has a long and arduous history.
Ida B. Wells-Barnett, along with Belle Squire and Virginia Brooks, who were white, established the Alpha Suffrage Club in Chicago. The National Women Suffrage Association (NWSA) served as the national entity that coordinated the work of state affiliates. The NWSA planned a march in Washington, DC on March 1913 that day before Woodrow Wilson was inaugurated. The NWSA was very sensitive to the constraints of the Jim Crow south within the context that it was willing to uphold southern segregationist attitudes and behaviors. This meant that national meetings held by the group in the south or when it was believed its southern members would be offended, Black women were excluded. Because the Alpha Suffrage Club was based in Illinois, it did not have segregated meetings or marches. Wells-Barnett and other members of the club planned on attending the meeting and participating with their fellow white members. White southern women balked at the idea of marching alongside Black women, and they threatened to pull out of the march if it was integrated. This is a case in point where white women should have stood firm and insisted on an integrated march. They did not, but rather, they asked the Black women to all march together at the end! They were willing to sacrifice Black women in exchange for white southern support within the organization and on Capitol Hill. Still, Black women such as Wells-Barnett and Mary Church Terrell and others refused to bend or bow to this racist request. The Black newspaper, the Chicago Defender published a picture of Wells-Barnett after so audaciously moved from the crowd and took her rightful place with her Illinois colleagues. Church Terrell led a delegation from Howard University’s Delta Sigma Theta sorority as they too refused to remain in the back of the line.
With the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920, white women achieved their goal of gaining the right to vote. It would take another forty-five years for Black women to get the right to vote as most were denied this fundamental right throughout the south.
Third, this is a perfect time to bring the late Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm into the discourse on the presidential campaign of VP Harris. Politics does not always occur within institutions such as Congress. The pushing, pulling, and compromising that make up politics can and does occur in many other spaces. One of the main ones for Chisholm was the Women’s Movement where she should have been embraced and utilized for her political savvy and acumen. She was not. This serves as the third example of when white women could have served in a SheforShe role to advance the agenda not only for themselves but for Black women who were on the side of equality for all. The Women’s Movement unfortunately was viewed by some Black women as a repeat of the suffrage movement in the sense that white women were not willing to advocate an anti-racist agenda and to see and work with them as equals.
Congresswoman Chishlom was a champion of equality for all and women’s rights. Her commitment to these issues was demonstrated in her successful campaign for the New York State Assembly in 1964. Four years later in 1968, Chisholm was the first African American woman elected to Congress. She was a feminist who believed in women’s agency. During her time in political office, Chishlom stood on a platform for worker’s rights, women’s rights, and labor rights. She was not afraid to work with those who held similar views as her nor did she shy away from attempting to work with those who did not. Because there were so few women in Congress at the time that Chishlom served, one would think that she would have been able to work with her fellow white Congresswomen, especially on issues that affected women regardless of their race or ethnicity. This was not always the case. Still “Fighting Shirley” as she was called continued to fight and lift as she climbed.
Congresswoman Chisholm made political history when she had the audacity to run for president in 1972. Politicians, the media, and ordinary citizens thought her campaign had no real chance of gaining traction. It is no wonder that she did not receive sufficient support from Black men in and out of Congress (by 1972, several had been elected to Congress), white women, or white men. As usual, Black women from all walks of life supported her presidential bid. Chisholm was the first Black woman to serve as a presidential candidate for a major party—seven years after the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965! Her presidential campaign might have gotten a boost if feminists such as Gloria Steinem and other white women in the Women’s Movement would have backed her campaign. In the end, Steinem supported George McGovern.
Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Bid
If there was ever a time in recent history when a SheforShe campaign was badly needed it was in 2016 when so many Americans, especially women believed Hillary Clinton mounted a formidable challenge to former President Trump. She lost and Trump won despite that fact that she won the popular vote with 48% to Trump’s 46%. We all know that it’s not the popular vote that determines the outcome on election night. It’s the first past the post electoral system found in the electoral college that ultimately determines the winner.
Furthermore, Clinton won more votes than Trump among various age groups that will be crucial in the 2024 election. These include: 63% for voters younger than 50; 48% for voters older than 50; 58% of voters younger than 30; and 51% of voters between the ages of 30-49. Overall, Clinton won 45% of white women’s votes while Trump garnered 47% of white women’s votes. Nevertheless, too many white women did not see the need to vote for one of their own. This speaks volumes about descriptive representation. In this case, white women did not necessarily view Hillary Clinton as someone who could advance their agenda, but rather, they obviously trusted Trump to represent them as indicated in the popular vote. In 2020, President Biden won 46% of white women’s votes while more white women voted for Trump than they did in 2016. He won 53% of the white female vote.
Given this electoral system, it is crucial that VP Harris wins enough votes in key states—not the popular vote but from delegates in the electoral college. A SheforShe campaign must be mounted for these delegates if we do not want to see a repeat of 2016. The outpouring of support for VP Harris from a wide swath of Democratic Party supporters especially white women is a sign that a SheforShe campaign is in the making. African American, Latina, Native American, Asian American, and women voters from immigrant backgrounds were crucial in mobilizing voters in 2020 for President Biden. There is no doubt that they will demonstrate the same level of support or even higher for VP Harris. It appears that a significant number of white women are willing to participate in a SheforShe campaign to elect VP Harris and whomever she chooses as her running mate. There are several factors to thank for this. First, the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, that overturned the 1973 and 1992 rulings in Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, appears to be the gift that keeps on giving. The Supreme Court ruled that the constitution did not confer abortion rights to women, but rather, states could make decisions around a women’s right to access an abortion. The political backlash against the ruling was heard loud and clear in JD Vance’s home state of Ohio (Vance is the Republican VP nominee). The Ohio legislature wanted to impose a constitutional ban on abortion rights with Issue One. Democrats wanted to let the voters decide if they wanted to put the issue of abortion rights on a ballot initiative by amending the state constitution to protect abortion rights.
A convoluted political ploy was devised. First, the majority Republican legislature tried to make it more difficult for voters to put this initiative on the ballot. Usually, a simple majority was enough for voters to mount a ballot initiative. If successful, Issue One was intended to raise the threshold to 60%. Second, the decision to put it on the ballot in November 2023 was voted on in August 2023 when a lot of voters were enjoying their summers, getting their children ready to return to school, and college students were returning to their college campuses both within and outside of Ohio. The Republican-dominated legislature had agreed that ballot initiatives would not be voted on in August, but then did an about face in an effort to defeat the issue from getting on the November ballot. Third, the political ads by Republicans and their supporters in favor of the 60% threshold were confusing. Their efforts backfired. Thousands of white women voted early while others voted in August. Thousands of young white male and female supported putting Issue One on the ballot in November. They were joined by thousands of African American men and women in Ohio. In the end, 57.1 voted no for the 60% threshold while 42.9% voted yes.
Issue One is a direct result of the Dobbs decision in Ohio. In November 2023, Ohio voters supported reproductive rights and not just abortion access by voting to amend its constitution. Reproductive rights are now codified into law in Ohio. This was made possible by a SheforShe campaign that was joined by thousands of men who represented various racial, ethnic, social, and economic backgrounds. Ohio voters were joined by these same coalitions in Michigan, California, Vermont, Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana who supported a powerful mantra that was heard during the Civil Rights Movement “We Who Believe in Freedom Cannot Rest.”
