Beyond Reform:
Unpacking Kamala Harris, Ms. Magazine, and the CIA's Feminist Legacy
Chris Spencer
The Feminist Milieu of American Politics: Few figures engender as much debate as Kamala Harris. As the first female Vice President, her rise is celebrated as monumental in the struggle for gender equality. This is further complicated, however, by her linkage to a broader feminist narrative through the warmly debated history of Ms. Magazine and its linkage to the CIA. The meeting point of this gets into a much-needed critical examination of what feminism means in the context of power, ambition, and often hidden agendas that shape social movements.
It's important to note that the challenges faced by Harris are not unique to her. They echo down the careers of other prominent women in politics, such as Hillary Clinton, Carmen Yulín Cruz, and Sarah Palin. Each of these women, in their pursuit of high office, has encountered controversies and polarized public opinion. Their experiences underscore the unique challenges that ambitious women in politics face, and the ways in which their gender intersects with their ambitions.
The modern feminist movement essentially reached its height with the publication of Ms. Magazine in the 1970s, and after that, it was deeply involved in the fight for women's rights. However, several links to more controversial funding from the CIA raise complex questions about the relationship between social activism and geopolitical agendas.
While some would argue that gender equality was being advanced, others said that the movement also ran parallel with a more significant strategy that has served to weaken traditional family structures, leading to increased rates of fatherless households. This connection raises some critical questions regarding the intersection of feminism with social control and the implications these have had for family dynamics—divorced people; fatherless children turned adults—are easier to control.
Harris's stint as Attorney General in California was criticized for so-called tough-on-crime policies that leaned on already marginalized communities and initiatives that were perceived as authoritarian. Criticism has also been levied against her support of legislation, like "three strikes" laws, which have led to mass incarceration, as well as ethical concerns regarding her initiatives, such as the diversion program for parents of truant children, since she prioritized punitive measures over supportive interventions. These decisions have one questioning her stand on justice and equity and show the kind of governance that relies on control-cum-punishment rather than trust in a community agency that is supported by jailing the parents of truant children.
While Harris's political trajectory represents a significant leap forward for women in leadership, her record reflects a more traditional approach to governance. This has led many to question whether her ambitions align with the transformative ideals of feminism. Her case underscores the need for a broader conversation on the implications of her actions, particularly in the context of unrestrained ambition and representation politics.
A big part of this is the economic realities facing so many, in particular white men, who find themselves increasingly minimized in their job prospects. This fear of losing that job is not just a perception but a reality facing millions of individuals. Over the past decades, the employment landscape has changed dramatically.
The decline of heavy industry, automation, and globalization have given their full share of job losses in the manufacturing and construction sectors. This leaves many people supposed to be working without employment, thus significantly contributing to feelings of disenfranchisement. Truly worse than many states, disenfranchisement is color-blind. Part of the crux of the displaced men's afflicted disenchantment is the phenomena throughout the 1980s to the current era—ethnic women, often their first job ever, being made into painting supervisors, grounds maintenance supervisors, horticulturists—women who could not spell the word et al.
We have all seen it, and men with contractors' and agricultural licenses are told, "She is more qualified than you are." If you ever wonder why nothing works in America anymore, here's why. And it isn't confined to job loss. A woman at Toyota in Pasadena, California, tried to charge me $930 for putting air in our car's tires—no smile, no concern for our safety in the car, none whatsoever. "You owe us $930 for our diagnostics services." The car had a screwdriver in the rear passenger tire. A supervisor at America Tires fixed it for me for free—he is a man. This is what is now known as "feminism," but don't we all have a nickname for it?
Ms. Magazine was born in the 1970s, a pivotal moment within the modern feminist movement. Ms. Magazine cemented a space for women's voices and issues. Recent revelations of its CIA funding have sparked an embattled debate around the motivations of its advocacy. Critics, however, feel that this funding thinned the line between actual social activism and a state-promoted apparatus, resulting in a brand of feminism that can very well slip into the reinforcement of present structures of power.
In that aspect, one sees a manifestation of the same tension in Kamala Harris's political trajectory: how policies as Attorney General of California and later as Vice President often come at the expense of systemic change for individual success. While Harris represents progress by being a woman of color in high office, her positioning within traditional power structures begs many questions as to whether her ambitions further or hinder a truly transformative feminist agenda.
Critics of policy moves toward DEI argue that this often insidiously creates policies that favor one demographic group over others and reverse discrimination. Most white men feel their opportunities are being undermined, especially those already struggling to find work, by initiatives designed to address historical inequities. It was further compounded by the real impact of economic downturns and shifts in labor markets, where whole communities have faced economic desolation due to factory closures and job outsourcing. It does not matter; all that matters is that we put an XX into a marble-gilded cage and marvel at either—usually a matter of 'choose one': 1) High-tension aspiration, 2) "Feminism."
Data shows that millions of white males are going through prolonged periods of unemployment and underemployment, which contributes to broader social issues like growing mental health concerns and despair. These lived experiences are forgotten in the narratives of job loss, as complex problems get reduced to no more than propaganda or myths. Their struggles should count for something in economic equity and the paths to empowerment. Harris has had four years to give them jobs; so has Joe Biden. Neither one cares, not a single bit, about the white male suicides:
As of 2023, data on suicide rates among white males in the United States continues to reflect significant concerns. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), white males remain the demographic with the highest suicide rates. Here are some key points for comparison:
1. Current Rates: In 2021, the suicide rate for white males was approximately 22.8 per 100,000. This trend has shown a gradual increase over the years, with 2023 estimates suggesting the rate may have risen further, reflecting ongoing mental health challenges exacerbated by economic and social factors.
2. Historical Context: In the early 2000s, the suicide rate for white males was significantly lower, hovering around 18 per 100,000. This indicates a worrying upward trajectory over the past two decades, highlighting increasing mental health crises within this demographic.
3. Demographic Comparisons: While white males have the highest rates, other demographics, such as Black males and females, have also seen rises in suicide rates. However, white males still lead in overall numbers, particularly among middle-aged and older adults.
4. Contributing Factors: Economic factors, including job loss and unemployment, especially in traditionally male-dominated industries, have contributed to this trend. The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated feelings of isolation and anxiety, impacting mental health across all demographics but particularly affecting white males.
5. Preventive Measures: Awareness campaigns and mental health resources aimed at white males are increasingly being emphasized, focusing on destigmatizing mental health issues and encouraging help-seeking behavior.
One social media feminist made the comment that “they all need to adjust…” How does a dead white man adjust?
The discussion of DEI and affirmative action is cognitive dissonance. Although these programs were devised to correct systemic injustices and make society fair, they elicited complex responses at the end of the Soviet Union when such policies were seen as hampering the opportunities available to others.
With increased job losses among white males and increased pressures toward policy programs designed to ensure inclusiveness, a counterbalancing tension develops that can lead people to harbor divisive views and support policies that are regressive. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, forever. Let's try again; the result will be "progress," and another trade or profession will become Chinese. When you buy Chinese, your money goes into Red China and stays there; it never comes back here.
This dynamic is especially stark in the present political environment, where populist appeals have started to resonate with those who feel left behind. The narrative of empowerment advanced by politicians like Harris inadvertently sends the message to many millions of white men that they are irrelevant to any conversation about family, caregiving, or economic opportunity. As women pursue a college education and professional development in "two women graduates for every man" colleges, the financial burden is placed on both genders, and that breeds disillusionment as expectations go up against realism. Is it a college or CIA feminist camp?
People in many European countries understand that employment is rooted in stable family structures. However, it is hard to do in the face of the anti-family sentiment that has increasingly defined both mainstream discourse and public policy. If feminists must redefine themselves through an establishment that may have once supported a burgeoning revolution for all women, we can ask the question—who really benefits?
Women can be anything in a world where they may turn out to be yet another cog in a machinery meant to uphold existing power structures, and in the end, the revolution might just see women like Harris ushering in the very policies they fought against for decades.
This complex interplay of ambition, feminism, and systemic inequities underscores a critical need for introspection within feminist movements and advocates alike, forcing the question: as we strive for a more equitable society, whose ambitions are being uplifted—and at what cost?
There is a deep, satirical irony at play for over 50 years of feminism --- women “empower themselves” by being single, by being divorcees and living bitter about their choice(s) --- and these angry, sole teams of one imagine their CIA-sanctioned disenfranchise as “empowered.” Kamala Harris is ripe, over-ripe, even, to put in place greater draconian police state measures (from her speeches, "lock it down")... In four to eight years, feminists will have less free speech, more censored media, more Facebooks snipping speech and content, less avenues of protest and dissent. 50 years of suffrage, leading to Harris selling out in every way that matters except abortion. She will throw you that one crumb, and take everything else away in true Statist manner. Kamala Harris is a Statist.
Harris wants to be President, as she (erroneously) claimed, "of all of us." She is not connecting to Hispanic Voters. After years of being called "Angry White Men" by newspapers and TV, who depict the whole lots of us as "tiki torch carrying skinheads" (we are diverse people) -- but we finally have a target to take our "anger" (angst) out on: Harris. Black Men, also bearers of Angst, can also target Harris, by voting for "anybody else." She may very easily be defeated by the three demographics that she ignored the most. Harris promised women "everything" and made the rest of us feel like the ongoing nobodies that we are. Those who suffer in silence will decide Election 2024.
Blaming job loss for the rising suicide rates among white males is a reductionist and overly simplistic approach that fails to address the multifaceted nature of this crisis. While economic factors undeniably contribute to feelings of despair, suicide is a complex issue influenced by a range of social, psychological, and environmental factors, including mental health stigma, isolation, and societal expectations surrounding masculinity. Each suicide profoundly impacts families and communities, rippling through social networks and exacerbating existing emotional and economic hardships. By reducing this tragic phenomenon to mere economic indicators, we risk overlooking the urgent need for comprehensive mental health support, community engagement, and a nuanced understanding of the underlying issues at play, thereby trivializing the lived experiences of those affected and hindering effective intervention strategies.