Hillary's Gift to Women
In Friday's New York Times, Susan Faludi rejoiced over Hillary Clinton's destruction of the myth of female prissiness and innate moral superiority, hailing Clinton's "no-holds-barred pugnacity" and her media reputation as "nasty" and "ruthless." Future female presidential candidates will owe a lot to the race of 2008, Faludi wrote, "when Hillary Clinton broke through the glass floor and got down with the boys."
I share Faludi's glee -- up to a point. Surely no one will ever dare argue that women lack the temperament for political combat. But by running a racially-tinged campaign, lying about her foreign policy experience, and repeatedly seeming to favor McCain over her Democratic opponent, Clinton didn't just break through the "glass floor," she set a new low for floors in general, and would, if she could have got within arm's reach, have rubbed the broken glass into Obama's face.
A mere decade ago Francis Fukuyama fretted in Foreign Affairs that the world was too dangerous for the West to be entrusted to graying female leaders, whose aversion to violence was, as he established with numerous examples from chimpanzee society, "rooted in biology." The counter-example of Margaret Thatcher, perhaps the first of head of state to start a war for the sole purpose of pumping up her approval ratings, led him to concede that "biology is not destiny." But it was still a good reason to vote for a prehistoric-style club-wielding male.
Not to worry though, Francis. Far from being the stereotypical feminist-pacifist of your imagination, the woman to get closest to the Oval Office has promised to "obliterate" the toddlers of Tehran -- along, of course, with the bomb-builders and Hezbollah supporters. Earlier on, Clinton foreswore even talking to presumptive bad guys, although women are supposed to be the talk addicts of the species. Watch out -- was her distinctly unladylike message to Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-Il, and the rest of them -- or I'll rip you a new one.
There's a reason why it's been so easy for men to overlook women's capacity for aggression. As every student of Women's Studies 101 knows, what's called aggression in men is usually trivialized as "bitchiness" in women: Men get angry; women suffer from bouts of inexplicable, hormonally-driven, hostility. So give Clinton credit for defying the belittling stereotype: She's been visibly angry for months, if not decades, and it can't all have been PMS.
But did we really need another lesson in the female capacity for ruthless aggression? Any illusions I had about the innate moral superiority of women ended four years ago with Abu Ghraib. Recall that three out of the five prison guards prosecuted for the torture and sexual humiliation of prisoners were women. The prison was directed by a woman, Gen. Janis Karpinski, and the top U.S. intelligence officer in Iraq, who also was responsible for reviewing the status of detainees before their release, was Major Gen. Barbara Fast. Not to mention that the U.S. official ultimately responsible for managing the occupation of Iraq at the time was Condoleezza Rice.
Whatever violent and evil things men can do, women can do too, and if the capacity for cruelty is a criterion for leadership, as Fukuyama suggested, then Lynndie England should consider following up her stint in the brig with a run for the Senate.
It's important -- even kind of exhilarating -- for women to embrace their inner bitch, but the point should be to expand our sense of human possibility, not to enshrine aggression as a virtue. Women can behave like the warrior queen Boadicea, credited with slaughtering 70,000, many of them civilians, or like Margaret Thatcher, who attempted to dismantle the British welfare state. Men, for their part, are free to take as their role models the pacifist leaders Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. Biology conditions us in all kinds of ways we might not even be aware of yet. But virtue is always a choice.
Hillary Clinton smashed the myth of innate female moral superiority in the worst possible way -- by demonstrating female moral inferiority. We didn't really need her racial innuendos and free-floating bellicosity to establish that women aren't wimps. As a generation of young feminists realizes, the values once thought to be uniquely and genetically female -- such as compassion and an aversion to violence -- can be found in either sex, and sometimes it's a man who best upholds them.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thanks BE.. I could not have put it better. Hillary is an embarrassment to women, that is why I have opposed her since the new bellicose model was trotted out for this campaign. So glad she is losing.
YUCCCH>
Talk about ending the female claim to moral superiority!
My God.
Hillary rocks and is the only one who can beat McCain. There is not disgrace to being tough! All of the great women leaders have been. So get over your silly sense of what a woman should be.
Sure, as soon as you get over your silly sense of what a President should be: principled and honest.
Goulda Meir was not so tough! She invited foriegn visitors into her kitchen for tea and got many a deal done. Remember the old fable of flies and honey?
what happened to the female being the deadlier of the species? women can be far more deadlier than men but their anger is usually directed at more personal attacks. I can't see a woman charging off to war because she wants her stock at Halliburton to rise. And I don't think that's a bad thing.
As far as Hillary - I'd love to see a woman as Pres or VP, and it can be her if that's how it goes. But I think Obama is who we need now. Plus, he's kept this long, drawn out primary from getting truly ugly by refusing to roll around in the mud with Hillary.
Plus, Obama's rise is largely of his own merit, not because he was married to a former president. Nothing makes a Hillary supporter angrier than being asked if they really believe Clinton would be a senator now if she hadn't been married to Bill.
In the end, Both candidates are good, let's vote for whoever gets the nom.
Why wouldn't Hillary be a senator? There have been a few female senators since the Senate's inception, you know, and none of them were former First Ladies until now. It's a wonder to me that nobody accuses male Presidents of not being able to achieve their success without their *wives*, as I don't believe that we have ever had an unmarried President. I would find it easier to believe that Clinton only got where she was on account of her husband if she had not won re-election in New York--given all the complaining about what brought her to campaign there, I figured they'd toss her out after the first term. New York is unforgiving of b.s. at this point, from what I can tell.
I think Hillary supporters get angry with you because of the double standard. If a President gets into office riding the coattails of a popular war (Washington), riding the coattails of a popular President (Adams, Jefferson, the second Roosevelt), on the strength of a famous name (the second Adams, the second Roosevelt, the second Bush), or because the Supreme Court handed it to them (the second Bush), nobody who really matters contests their right to be there. If all Clinton has going for her is that she was married to a popular President, so what? At least the Supreme Court didn't appoint her, am I right?
Presidents who married while president:
James Tyler
Grover Cleveland
Woodrow Wilson
Bachelor presidents:
James Buchanan
Once again the wishy-washy-wing of the modern women's movement has taken flight from what stands to be the last opportunity any of you will see to elect a woman as POTUS from the Democratic party. The next opportunity you get will be for Lizzy Dole in 2016. Maybe Olympia Snowe. But it will be a Republican for sure now. After watching the liberal-fascist wing hijack this party, I think any woman coming forward from within its ranks stands as much of a chance of being elected POTUS as Rev. Wrong.
What is it about a woman who competes like a man that you find so repulsive. If Hillary were "Hank" Clinton, and fighting just as dirty, would you be so willing to join in the pile-on? Doubtful. Why? Equality cuts both ways - you cannot cherry pick which qualities you want in your preferred woman candidate for high office. She either can compete with the men, or she cannot. The fact that you're so disappointed in her should actually reflect your disappointment with the men in the party establishment. I doubt you could stand the strain of 12 hours in Hillary's day, Barb.
Oh Dream on. There will be a woman running in the next election, even if it's a Rep. Most of us are still going to be around in 2016 anyway.
I guess you are saying if Obama gets in he is so good he'll be re-elected. Yes, I agree.And he will be a stronger and more peaceful,better feminist than Hillary too, I predict.
I don't see it the way you do, and I am an OLD feminist. What I see is a bunch of single-minded women who have disabled their ethical compasses who giving another woman a license to be a racist if that is the only way she can win an election. How this does the woman's movement any good is beyond me. I am waiting for a woman I can respect to run for the White House. I will be happy to support that woman. I can't support one who campaigns with her husband on a platform of opposing NAFTA, then --when the inaugural confetti is barely out of their collective hair, goes out on the stump and flacks it (on behalf of their corporate pals), then lies about it a decade and a half later.
Feminism: The right to choose anything, despite race, gender, religon -- accepting civil dialogue in the open market -- but not attacks from True Believers. And, so mis-informed on NAFTA. The Clinton Administration got what it could, none fully approved it, but believed Al Gore could finish the job, (easier than starting over, you know?), but we know what happened there. Put the blame where it belongs -- President Bush chose not to finish it.
Thank you for this. I agree completely. I am 4 months older than Hillary Clinton, and if you listen to the Pundits, I should be a member of her women's vote Demog. However, it is because I've worked for gender equality for most of my life, that Hillary Clinton was not my candidate - from day one.
We all know people like the Clintons. Generally, no one takes them on for their tactics due to fear of the power-play back lash that will come, so one tends to smile quietly, let them go on and on, and remove self to a "safer" place.
What I feel as I watch Hillary Clinton spin in the muck of self-destruction is a combination of:
1.) relieft, they will be gone for ever, shortly;
2.) rage that she presumes to represent the American female Leader; and finally;
3.) some degree of sorrow, for the small girl fighting with the boys as her mother told her to do.
What was true is no longer.
The Political change that is being accomplished by the Obama campaign is giving ALL American female Leaders the very best opportunity to affect their changes. We are moving from a time of TRICKSTER to THINKER and as a result will see the very best of America ahead of us.
I am a proud supporter of Barack Obama and ALL of the American female Leaders working for him, thanking them with every fiber of my being.
Hear, hear. Second that emotion as an older white life long feminist for OBAMA!!!!
Beautifully put my dear! I too have been around enough to have bumped my head on that glass ceiling a few times. I have been sickened by the "Good Ole Boy" mentality so prevalent here in the deep South. I am impressed by the notion that Obama is "green". To me that translates into "Not yet corrupted by the sleezy, back door, "business as usual" politics that has disgracefully become the norm". Please God give us a breath of fresh air before we all sufficate!!!!
You say that Obama is "not yet corrupted by the sleezy back door..."
Just get yourself on to the "Googles" and do a little research on how
he first got his start in politics in Chicago.
Obama is a ruthless politician with an Alfred E. Newman grin.
And you've been had. No fresh breath there, unless you
figure that his brilliance and cunning are a fresh breath.
Please Goddess, deliver us from the nightmare that is Obama.
At the moment, Senator Obama seems to have wrapped up the nomination while losing momentum and Senator Clinton seems to have it slipping away while gaining the Big Mo. Meanwhile, Obama's ultra-liberal fans, unable to control themselves, can't stop the Clinton bashing.
Of course, sub-conscously, they share the aims of their right-wing enemies who pound on Hillary for their own ends: to win in November. The oh-so-pure lefties end is to lose.
For only in losing can they avoid the realities of any administration's shortcoming, even the sainted Barack's, under the stresses and strains of the real world.
And so, as is evidenced all over this blog, Obama's acolytes shrilly insult Hillary along with her supporters - who make up pretty close to half of Democrats - in the self-hating hope enough of them walk away from the November election to achieve ultra-lefty nirvana, losing.
Then, there'll be years of satisfaction blaming the Clintons, their supporters, the media and all the "Closet Klansmen" in West Virginia and elsewhere for a loss that never should have happened no matter who got the nomination.
I would not call it Clinton bashing as much as I would call it a victory dance. It is a dance which involves movement of the body and shouting of the voice to really get into it.....kin
I think mature people who have been the backbone of the Dem party looong before the "new voter coalition" would not dismiss, and disrespect the ONLY SUCCESSFUL DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT in modern times, and then make favorable comments about Reagan.
I don't think mature people would be so gullible as to believe a weak serving of a candidate who embodies EVERY ridiculous claim the republicans have leveled at us for 7.5 years, can win the General Election. (ties to terrorist.
Yes, you people have it all figured out.
Accuse your opponent of stuff that you're doing; that's called hypocritical.
kgirl72, go ahead and dance but don't prance; sing but don't zing; shout but don't pout; wave but don't rave; clap but don't slap. If, indeed, the situation were reversed, that's the way I would hope the Clinton-lovers would react.
Actually, most Clinton supporters would be welcoming the prospect of a Clinton-Obama ticket if the shoe were on the other foot, which would have practically guaranteed 16 straight years of a Dem White House. What we may see instead is 0 years depending on who McCain picks as VP.
You know what? Liberals are a large part of the Democratic party. If you don't like it, become a Republican.
And another you know what? Hillary's supporters most certainly do NOT make up 49% of the democratic party.
When this primary started I predicted that HRC would not win it, because she wouldn't get the delegate count. Those of us who are involved in the Democratic party (who make up the delegates) would not support her because the Clinton's almost DESTROYED the Democratic party in the '90s.
Guess what? I was right.
I think that WJC and HRC are manchurian candidates. They almost killed the dem party, but didn't quite accomplish it in the 90s, so they're back to finish the job.
Well that's just it. One would think that Obama's supporters, since
he apparently will get the nomination, would be at least a TAD
gracious. But no, either they continue to insult, or get
condescending. Completely without class.
Example: A few weeks ago, in the Kentucky Derby, a beautiful
young filly named "Eight Belles" had to be euthanized on the
track. (let's not go in to the viciousness of horse racing)
Because "Eight Belles" was the horse Hillary picked to win,
the Obama supporters, at least over at Salon.com, were
gleeful about this, they thought it a good omen.
I can only say that Obama's rabid supporters are a
reflection of Obama himself. As above, so below.
Excellent post, Barbara Ehrenreich. That's exactly how I felt about the turn in Clinton's campaign: sure, it's great you are fighting fiercely, but is that *really* how you want to fulfill your ambitions and the hopes of so many women--by hopping up white racism?? Really??
Feminism has been trying to throw off that historical stain for a long time; Clinton has turned back the clock.
The MOMENT obama failed to stand up and adamantly declare that Bill and Hillary Clinton are not racists, is the moment he lost any credibility about being a "uniter." IF you can't see that fact, I can't help your Bush-ability.
WHAT in the WORLD are you talking about?
WHAT racial innuendos?
I am SICK and tired of these LIES propagated about the Clintons.
LBJ and MLK...Civi
SORRY but we really didn't need OBAMA'S racial innuendos.
You amount to the same frauds that perpetuated the failed idea that "clinton darkened Obama's skin on a youtube video".
Who's preoccupied by race? DISGUSTING!
"And IF OBAMA didn't want to be compared to Jesse Jackson, maybe he shouldn’t have put R&B in his SC advertisements, shouldn’t have sent black-only emissaries to the Black SC community, and should have put Wright, who was doing the rounds, on pause. The message in South Carolina put out by Obama’s campaign, whether the media wanted to ignore it or not, was “Vote for me I am Black.” To then come back and smash Bill Clinton for mentioning Jesse Jackson, that’s audacity; Axelrod made this clear through his surrogates, while he had Obama say that what the Clintons’ said was “unfortuna
I'm all for a woman president, senator, etc. I would have been for Hillary before I heard Barack speak at the DNC in 04. I was very excited about the possibility of the First Female or Black Man as President of the USA, but this whole Divide and Conquer mentality, polling, Feminists, Racial lines, etc has really came to the forefront during the campaign. There is a clearly a double standard and code words being used everyday. I'm a Black Man and in my opinion, Barack could NO WAY be as aggressive as HRC. If he did or showed more passion, he would be a threat, ABMS (Angry Black Man Syndrome). If a woman is aggressive, then the word "Bitch" is thrown around or she trying to be tough. There's a hard line for both of the candidates to cross within this society. I'm like Michelle Obama when I say that I'm proud right now that the possibility of the next President of the US will be a Female or a Black Man.
Having said all of that, she's throwing "electability" around which is a code word to me. She's actually saying, I get the rural, hard working white voters. She's playing to the Feminist crowd, but if Barack did any of that, he would be out the door long time ago. Now it seems she's just trying to stick a knife so deep, the wound will not heal by November. She's lost my respect!!!
"code word" such as bamboozled and "chickens coming home to roost"?
Electabili
"code word" my rear end.
Republicans don't have to swing for Obama. Obama has got a wrap. He has added tens of thousands of voters to the Democratic party, which now looks like it might stand for something again. He has more donors than Clinton and McCain put together, good thing they both have personal fortunes to waste. Any good democrat has heard radical left wing speach, because intelligent and educated people listen to EVERYBODY's opinion, not just the talking heads or the corporate powers (often one in the same). Just because you listen to conflicting opinions, it does not necessarily follow that they reflect yours. Only the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" cookie cutter crowd are threatened by the fact that Barack listened to what other intelligent articulate people have to say. This will bode better for the US because listening to people you are trying to negotiate with is so much more effective that putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalalalala" (or worse, threaten to obiterate a country unborn babies and all) whenever you hear something your don't understand. This is America's chance to be a true superpower again. Why don't you open your mind and join us?
TO ALL the homophobic, jealous women writing here.....
There is one thing about women who have been kcked around in public (or at home for that matter)...
and hats off the WEST VIRGINIA..
Between 1882 and 1930 there 118 lynchings in the commonwealth of Kentucky. Are you sure it is about womens anger, or perhaps there is another motive.
"TO ALL the homophobic, jealous women writing here....."
----------
I can only assume that you are anti-feminist with that kind of talk. And anger rarely makes a single human being "very clear."
You do not 'Inspire' me to do anything besides roll my eyes.
OBAMA '08!
This is the first time I have ever heard "Battered Women Syndrome" being associated with clarity of thought and good judgment. If anything, I would think the opposite. Women who have been beaten and kicked around have a completely different psychology then those who don’t suffer from abuse, such as low self-esteem, depression and sometimes misguided anger and aggression.
Consider this... several blows to the head can cause brain damage. This example is more like HRC.
Hillary also proves you don't have to be a man to be a hypocrite and a phony, in my opinion. Barack is miles above her in the integrity domain.
I think you're right to indicate that this is your opinion rather than objective truth. So many Obama supporters tend to present their opinions as reality.
Ok, enough of that. A large portion of bloggers and posters in general tend to present their opinions as reality. It is only lack of objectivity that would lead anyone to believe that only those on the opposing team would, well, lack objectivity.
Sure... that's why in a very un-hypocritical and non-phony way, he has climbed on the shoulders of his "friends" and political allies, to traverse the ladder of his political career, then kick them to the curb, when "they no longer serve him, or his campaign" for president of the USA. Wake up, Obama is no different than any other politician he would like everyone to think he is above. He uses other people to get what he wants, and to do his dirty work for him, and discards them when he is through. Thankfully some people still have half a brain left to think with. Mr. Obama is an intellectual elitist, the same as the other pundits, and political allies he has always been in the company of. Check his record, - "Look at the road I have travelled, and stepping stones that I have used to bring me here. Can you see where I am going?" Or are you just blind?
Pahprd, now that is some analysis of senator Obama. I noticed that you didn't give one of senator Clinton. Obviously you are one of the people who would not vote for Obama no matter what. Being that senator Clinton is a woman of integrity and not a LIAR, I guess she has your vote. May God help you because of your ignorance.
An older Molly Ivins column provided by another poster here has this to say:
I will not support Hillary Clinton for president
January 20, 2006
Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her.
Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.
Oh, if only Molly were with us now.
I'm grateful that i'm not the only one in the west that noted that some of the evil doers at Abu Ghraib were female.I'm also disappointed that it doesn't speak to the issue of what the 'Abu Ghraibs' imply about our understanding of history. why it is that those we were raised to believe know what it is to be powerless and taken advantage of are failing to take this 'women's wisdom' into the professions and institutions with the effect of behaving better than 'the old boys network'? And why are so few evaluating the civil rights movements for whether or not they succeeded in creating peace love and brotherhood with the same zeal that Hillary's generation judged their parents? And if the baby boomers failed morally to create a more perfect union, what was wrong with their analysis of the old boys club, white society, the Christians and traditionalists? Is it enough to say 'well, we abolished slavery didn't we?' 'Women do what only men did before and look-a black man stands on the steps of the white house! Surely, this is progress!' I'll cheer for humanity when people demonstrate that they're ready willing and able to distinguish good from evil, progress from more of the same, a few bad apples from systematic causes, problems from failure, reason to continue from reasons to stop, moderation from competence, suffering evil from inflicting it.
There isn't a whole lot wrong with the leftist analysis of the old boys' club, white society, the organized religionists and traditionalists. It's just that it is excruciatingly difficult to shake off assumptions you were raised under and move on to something new. If I had a nickel for every boomer-engendered social group that declared itself a life-affirming alternative to the "mainstream death culture" only to prove under analysis that it had the same shortcomings and failings, I'd be a rich woman. This is where I get angry at people who dismiss "purism." If you're going to do something, do it *right*--just talking about it or theorizing about it is not going to get you anywhere. If you really want to fight racism or sexism, don't be a racist or a sexist! Or if you have those attitudes and they're hard to get rid of, don't act on them! Don't act on them *anyway* and then go, "Well, I'm not *perfect*" when people call you on your behavior. Why is this so hard to understand?
let's talk about the super feminist's exit from the campaign. do you really think obama, or any other man for that matter, would be allowed the 'space' and time in order to make a decision to concede?
that would be a no.
but we must tread carefully less we damage the 'delicate' psyche of hillary. hillary, who in her last carnation, was probaly attilla the hun or jack the ripper. can anyone imagine her knuckle dragging antics and histrionics segueing into compassion and allowing her opponent to save face?
It would be a sad day for feminism if Hillary Clinton were ever to become PUSA. She is basically the alter-ego of a feminist, trying to out macho the old boys club. She has become a caricature of a feminist. Feminists today do not need to try to act like good old boys in order to be tough and competent. She will get us into another war just to show how tough she is.
Please. You do not speak for all feminists. It most certainly would not be a sad day. I doubt that you have a crystal ball that tells you what Hillary would do in the future. Let's see all of you go through the days, weeks, months and years of people dissecting and second guessing everything you have ever said or done. The idea that she was treated fairly in the press is laughable. Just the insults on this page alone make me sick. The only difference between "feminists today" and "other feminists" is the year. Women are still our own worst enemies.
Feminism: The right to choose anything, despite race, gender, religon -- accepting civil dialogue in the open market -- but not attacks from True Believers.
I think what it will do is motivate a bonafide female candidate to run next time. When I say that, yes, I don't consider Hillary Clinton a bonafide candidate and never have. I don't hate her, but honestly. She had one largely unsuccessful term in the Senate before she chose to run for president under her belt. She had all kinds of skeletons in the closet, she had campaign finance scandals from 2000 that she's hidden under the carpet, she voted TWICE to give Bush the authority to start an illegal war in Iraq and has never apologized for the fact, she's failed miserably to get an overwhelming majority of the legislation she's crafted passed (you can't blame it all on the Republican majority, too...some of that stuff was just really carelessly crafted).
Just think...if Rep. Barbara Lee had run, she's got a lot of what Barack Obama has PLUS she's a she. How many female candidates opted out because Hillary was running? Will we ever know the truth about that? Would Hillary Clinton have gotten as far as she had if she were Hillary Rodham, the ex-Goldwater girl who led counter protests against Vietnam War protesters back in college?
There was never two votes for the war, there was only one, but then again if you actually paid close attention to the news you wouldn't be backing Obama now would you?
There was actually a bill (HR 3199, SB 2271) in 2005-2006 to reauthorize the presidents authority to initiate a military action, as well as many other dangerous components of the patriot act, without the approval of congress. Both Clinton and Obama reached across the aisle to join the Republicans in passing it.
The president's interpretation of it is that is supports "the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."
Pretty sickening. It extended the presidents authority to unilaterally initiate military action and then withhold information about this decision from the American people. If you don't consider that a vote to authorize the war, you should pay closer attention. Then we all would have voted for Kucinich.
Cynthia McKinney was still running, last I heard. Another so-called two-in-one.
I haven't inner bitchybness, I have inner strenght. What HRC has is outer bitchyness.
Dear Pema: First off, please proofread your posts, your point gets
lost with misspellings.
Second, in solidarity with Hillary, I AM A BITCH. I also have inner
and outer strength. Grrrrrl.
She's been visibly angry for months, if not decades, and it can't all have been PMS.
__________
I've reread this piece half a dozen times now. Molly Ivins lives!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
