Kamala Harris represents a militant, in-your-face feminism...

Cathy Smith

Kamala Harris is an intensely divisive figure in contemporary politics—an incandescent icon for some, an ongoing disappointment for many others. As the first-ever woman Vice President, she embodies a pivotal feminist moment. But this political achievement does raise some disturbing questions on what empowerment is and for whom.

Wrapped up in Harris's political persona is a profound commitment to security and law enforcement at the expense of those self-same communities that she is supposed to represent. This was taken to its logical conclusion in her tenure as Attorney General for California, where she tended towards tough-on-crime policies that evidently hit low-income and minority communities the hardest. Critics charge that her policies moved closer towards more punitive measures and away from justice itself but underline how feminist tropes of empowerment can be intertwined with state power and surveillance.

These intersections of feminism and state security raise profound ethical issues. A certain stream of feminist thought has allied itself with state interests, which often argue for policies of safety and security at the expense of individual freedoms. Such alliances more often than not further reinforce structures of domination. For example, in the context of the War on Drugs, some feminist leaders supported what was seen as "protectionist" policies that answered calls for increased surveillance and incarceration, which by and large disproportionately attacked already-marginalized communities (Crenshaw, 1991).

Under Harris, there has always been sharp tension between fighting for women's rights and policies furthering more state surveillance and control. The "three strikes" law in California is only one example of how efforts toward public safety are usually coupled with the loss of civil liberties and social justice. In trying to diminish crime, such actions actually serve to perpetuate inequality and further solidify power systems in the name of security.

The modern feminist movement often overlooks what state surveillance has to say about the violations of privacy and civil liberties. Demands for security too often result in invasive state practices targeting communities of color and impoverished populations. A feminism indifferent to what state control portends is one in jeopardy of collusion with the very systems it purports to undermine.

Moreover, the CIA even has connections with organizations such as Ms. Magazine, which was an out-and-out reminder that feminism could easily be made a tool of social control rather than an instrument of liberation. In such alignments, however, the focus is often relayed to institutional power and sidetracks real-life experiences of the very subjects it ought to empower. Such state feminism, therefore, betrays the goals of feminism, which must seek equity, justice, and the dismantling of repressive mechanisms.

During her term, Harris has been criticized for being absent on the issues which involve the needs of men, Native Americans, Latinos, and Black men. The issues she has spearheaded so far only involve women and LGBTQ communities; minor compared to other communities. As the 2024 election looms around the corner, so does Harris appear to "buy" votes with mere outreach campaigns with no substantial core actions to accompany it.

The paradox goes further to demographic changes concerning white men, who increasingly feel like they are being marginalized in discussions of equity and representation. While movements that deal with injustices of the past rise, these men's voices are not heard, adding to growing feelings of disaffection. Their struggles—economic apprehensions and job losses—are part of a wider narrative to which Harris and others have turned a blind eye.

With the country divided along political lines, Harris' ambitions align with an idea of progress that leaves many behind. While she has championed the causes of women's rights and better representation, her lack of engagement with the complexities of economic disparity and mental health crises among marginalized white men raises questions as to whether or not her brand of feminism is inclusively intersectional. Knowing these complexities is crucial in appealing to a wider constituency.

What's more, Harris's rhetoric very often drives a dichotomy alienating those she would try to uplift. In framing empowerment, Harris makes so many others feel like the marginal and promotes a narrative that stands a world away from the lived experiences outside her bubble. Painting white men as villains in discussions of empowerment does little to promote any dialogue; instead, it fosters animosity and division.

With the increasing rates of white male suicides, one might expect Harris to discuss this crisis. The etiology may be multifaceted and complex, but such neglect reveals a careless feminist movement preoccupied with only a politics of identity that does not consider crossing processes of race, class, and gender.

As the 2024 election approaches, this may be Harris' strategy to dodge every group, particularly those who will feel alienated by her policies. The ambition which introduced her to the vice presidency clashes now with the aspirations of a large sector of the population. She runs the risk of losing precisely those constituents she says she represents in her quest for high office.

Because of this, the legacy of Kamala Harris can only be a legacy of contradictions.

Her political rise is a fundamental shift, yet it also points out the lamentable things which feminism can and cannot do when it is too completely wedded to state power. Examining such narratives through a critical eye raises questions of whose interests such narratives serve and at what cost. Only by engaging with such nuance are we able to build a more inclusive and equitable future in the name of a feminism that empowers all citizens.

Kamala Harris represents a militant, in-your-face feminism that always seems to treat straight men as an oppositional force with gay men as their staunch allies. It's a dichotomy that alienates a large swath of the demographic while raising legitimacy questions from a political point of view about her support by those whom she ascribes to "the enemy." A perception that Harris and her administration are kowtowing to the women and LGBTQ+ communities at the expense of straight men further embitters growing discontentment among different aspects of her constituents.

At times, Harris's rhetoric and policy framed the discourse of empowerment as a zero-sum game. By framing straight men as, a problem, rather than as potential allies, she risks alienating voters who may feel they are being unfairly targeted in feminist narratives. As Harris-Perry said in 2011, that kind of rhetoric does build an "us versus them" mentality, which just might excite her base but also alienates more moderate voters looking for inclusion rather than lines of division.

This is a pattern, too. Take into consideration the record of her work when she was Attorney General of California alone, including that infamous "three strikes" law she supported—that disproportionately hit hard men from marginalized communities, barely sparing straight men through policies framed as protective but actually reinforcing pre-existing inequalities. Besides that, by laying high emphasis on the rights of some groups, together with that fact, it gives them the impression that she does not care about the general problems of other people.

With the 2024 election in mind, one pertinent question could be, why would straight men—most of those who feel marginalized today in the conversations about gender and race—vote for Harris? The politics are shifting, and the more Harris positions herself as some kind of opponent to straight men, the more she is going to lose people who otherwise would actually be behind her policies. Again, that dynamic shows how much more vital an inclusive narrative is in trying to reach out to everybody, rather than continuing in adversarial mode—which would mean losing big sections of the electorate.

We the people are not exclusive upscale women and gays---she has catered solely to her base, and now she is in a statistical dead heat with Trump.

Sources:

• Adams, J. (2023). Understanding Feminism: An Intersectional Approach. Feminist Press.
• Beck, L. (2024). The Politics of Inclusion: Rethinking Feminism for the 21st Century. Social Justice Journal, 12(1), 45-62.
• Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.
• Hartsock, N. (1983). The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism. In Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science (pp. 283-310).
• Jones, M. (2022). Dissonance in Democracy: Gender and Race in American Politics. Political Studies Review.
• Miller, D. (2020). Feminism, Power, and the State: A Critical Perspective. Journal of Gender Studies, 15(2), 201-218.
• Morris, A. (2018). State Surveillance and the Impact on Marginalized Communities. Critical Sociology, 44(2), 295-310.
• Smith, R. (2021). The Impact of Law Enforcement Policies on Communities of Color. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(3), 115-134.
• Taylor, P. (2023). The Crisis of White Male Identity in Modern America. American Journal of Sociology, 58(4), 456-478.
• Harris-Perry, M. (2011). Sister Outsider: The Challenge of Black Feminism in Contemporary Politics. In Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches (pp. 69-90). Ten Speed Press.
• Woods, S. (2023). Equity and Alienation: Voices of the Marginalized in Political Discourse. Journal of Political Ideologies, 28(1), 112-129.