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.

Comments

[Rule Of Law]

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.
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­_
This really does say it all and much better than I've been able. Our best leaders--our national icons in history--have all been these balanced individuals, of either sex. Obama is such a one.

[gini85]

Please give me an example of how Hillary lacks compassion She has helped millions of children secure health insurance as well as chaired and tripled the budget of a committee that provided legal services to the poor whose legal needs oftentimes fail to be met, look at the overwhelming majority of poor people on death-row. Tell me again she lacks compassion and I will just assume that you never bothered to consider what she has done for this country. This article also alludes to the ridiculous idea that she is running a "racially-tinged campaign." It was Obama who used the phrase "typical white person," alluding to his grandmother! Get off your high-horse already, people are not impressed.

[trailrunner9]

I much prefer Marie Cocco from the Washington Post's synopsis of what Hillary Clinton's gift to women was - a very rude and stunning awakening of the sad state of affairs of second class status being alive and well in the state of womenhood, with many female pundits and politicians willing participating in their own takedown, simply to get to their desired outcome. No one is questioning choosing one candidates merits over the others, but the stereotypical way in which women did it is very telling of their own state of denial and their willing acceptance, perhaps from years of conditioning, to a second class - double standard status alive and well in our society. Ladies, the silence was DEAFENING. Shame on you all.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080512_a_farewell_to_the_hillary_nutcracker_and_other_obscenities/

[ngannon]

Sure sexism is alive and well- as is racism and every other ism. I initially supported Hillary because she is a woman and the time is certainly overdue to have a woman president. I stopped supporting her because I found her behavior totally despicable and I will not support someone simply because of their sex. The more I learned of Obama the more impressed I became with him-his intelligence, honesty and character. Don't blame women if they do not support a candidate that they do not respect even if she is a woman- we will have a woman in the White House someday- just not this one.

[trailrunner9]

For you to give this response to my post, you apparently did not read it through and missed the point.

[gini85]

Could you please give me an example of the type of behavior that Clinton has portrayed that you find despicable. Thus far, I have seen her run a tough campaign, calling into question Obama's experience which is fair game considering he has only been a U.S. Senator for 2 years. She called him out when he sent out fliers that have inaccurately portrayed her campaign goals regarding health care. And her response to the Rev Wright debacle was limited to saying it would not be her church. While they are both democrats, Hillary has to separate herself from Obama in some way, and she has been as cordial and dignified as he has been. Certainly, they have both slipped up here and there, but I fail to see that Obama has been so far more upstanding than she.

[thepoliticalcat]

I spoke out against the obvious misogyny from day one. As did many other women. I'm firmly convinced Hillary's victory in New Hampshire was largely due to the despicable way in which the media simply pummeled her. Many women wrote to MSNBC and Chris Matthews was forced to apologize for his unacceptable behaviour.

Since then, however, Senator Clinton has succeeded in forcing me away from my support for her. Never again will I support someone who abused me for my activism, my education, my purported elitism (pretty cheeky coming from someone who has more than 300 times the amount of money I can ever lay claim to!), my apparent laziness or slackness or whatever she meant by "working, hardworking, white Americans.­" Even without all that, her remark about "obliterating" 70 million people was so casual as to horrify. Such a person, female, male, or dubiously gendered, should never ever be allowed into the halls of power.

[CarbonDate]

Yup. Samantha Power had it right the first time.

[bikemessenger]

Right on, politicalcat!

And to bauersox: I'm reading Obama's first book; he doesn't use cliches and he's no charlatan. You are utterly unfair to him. Shame on you.

Meanwhile, Hillary has been lifting every phrase she can from Obama's campaign.

[jojojo]

HRC assumed an air of moral superiority wrapped in her femaleness, but showed how she's just another empty (pants) suit, just like so many male empty-suit politicians. Obama gives hope for something better. That's why, though I voted for her twice for senate, I can no longer support her pro-war, racist candidacy.

[jojojo]

Female violence?

Go to menweb.org for articles from NY Times and others on female sex abusers, female domestic violence, child abuse. etc.

[wedgie]

Maggie Thatcher was my lesson in what some women will do to get to the top.

My hope is, the next woman in Hillary's position will not try and out right wing the right wingers.

It's a recipe for disaster. (Iraq War, etc.)

**

[AmbroseChapel]

Great article. I had this discussion just a few short weeks ago. The debate went on for quite awhile... This notion in context with the issue of Clinton's willingness to stay in the race somewhat goes hand in hand. Some would call her stubborn others would call it conviction while others would say that it's a mixture of both stemming from a belief of entitlement. To me it doesn't really matter. I do think that the longer Mrs Clinton stays in th race the more damaging it seems to be for her. Currently she prides herself with a few demographics. It's somewhat scary though, she presents herself as ambassador of these demographics and wields this self proclaimed power while her finger pointing husband leers over her shoulder. The one thing that her campaign has showed us is that she surrounds herself around people that feel compelled to agree with her. It seems that this "tough" factor guides her political decisions for better or worse. And finally, the use of fear and an "ends justify the means" attitude is a creed that looks all too familiar.

[Northshorewoman]

Sen. Clinton stays in the race because the race is not over. There are other states to vote. There are the questions about Michigan /Florida, where the rules say they must be punished/they were. But the rules also that they have a right to petition to be counted in an alternative fashion (and who doubts they will be seat at the Convention?). (And it is Sen. Clinton supporter every vote be counted, not Sen. Obama, by the way.) There is no winner. If that doesn't change, we go to a Brokered Convention, where Pleged and Super Delegates can change their votes. Sen. Obama did not know the rules when he decided not to be on the ballot in Michigan. By the time he figured it out, he decided he had better stay on the ballot in Florida. She always knew the rules. He did not. Wise delegates will go with the smartest candidate of the two, preferably now, but at the very least at a Brokered Convention.

[thepoliticalcat]

Senator Clinton's advisor Harold Ickes voted NOT to seat the Michigan and Florida candidates. Senator Clinton's campaign manager, Terry McAuliffe, threatened Carl Levin that no delegates would be seated in a previous election when Levin (MI) tried to move Michigan's primaries up. Senator Clinton herself is available in a clip on YouTube stating that she didn't take her name off the Michigan ballot, because the Michigan votes don't count for anything.

For her to now claim to be the champion of the disenfranchised is just a smidgen disingenuous, don't you think?

As for your hope for a brokered convention, consider this: Clinton started out with 200 superdelegates in her pocket and a war chest over $100 million. She is now in debt to the tune of $20 million. Obama started out with nothing. He now has more superdelegates, more pledged delegates, more voters, and $42 million in the bank with debts of $600,000. Which of these candidates should have the keys to the Treasury?

[AmbroseChapel]

It's unbelievable that you can still argue this. If HRC really wanted to count the votes and not disenfranchise voters she wouldn't rely on superdelegates like she argued before. If she didn't want to disenfranchise voters she wouldn't have made prior comments about Michigan. Let's face it the only way she can win this race is if voters are disenfranchised. SHE IS A POLITICIAN. What are you so afraid of? Obama is a good candidate. He's better than John McCain. If you think that this is going to the convention then you really need to wake up. She's driven but she's not stupid. She's in debt and loosing this race. The race isn't over and neither is her legacy. She has some decisions to make. Don't be angry about her not winning. Be excited about a change in the White House. Separate yourself from your emotions and vote for what's best for your country.

[robXdion]

Thoughtful and introspective men knew all of this already.

[janex]

What has been difficult for me as someone who twice voted for Bill Clinton, is understanding that much of what the "vast right-wing conspiracy" had to say about the Clintons was true.

There is no doubt, Mrs. Clinton will not apologize for raising the topic of race in the most divisive way possible and making it an "issue" in the most difficult way possible. Unfortunately race still is a divisive issue, and her position seems to be: what racists need to be heard more than anyone else which is in sharp contrast to her "screw 'em" comments from Bill's presidency. What I have learned about the Clintons in this episode that I should have learned earlier is that they will do anything to get what they want, and they will apologize for nothing.

I now wish the Clintons would just fall off the planet.

[ngannon]

I feel your pain.
I too was a Clinton supporter. I keep wondering if they have fallen this far or if I just never saw it at the time. I have seen sides of the Clintons that I wish I had never seen. Frankly I cannot watch either Clinton at this point and I will be happy when this primary mess is over and we can get to the general election and get Obama elected.

[Northshorewoman]

I have always been an admirer, mostly because when Barbara writes a piece I trust she has done her homework and that is not the case here. One example, Ireland. I see no evidence she spoke to any of these people: Ian Paisley, Bertie Ahearn, John, Hume, Inez McCormack, May Blood, Geraldine McAteer, Martin McGuinness, Mo Mowlam, Gerry Adams or Members of Vital Voices, all of whom have given public witness to Sen. Clinton’s work in Ireland. Now, Sen. Clinton’s response would be to a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel; whether she would sit down with the “bad” guys or not; and whether or not she has been “visibly angry for months.” I see no evidence she spoke to Sen. Clinton, who can give witness to her words, herself. And, here is a newsflash: There is no such thing as “innate moral superiorit­y.” Pure myth, embraced by the arrogant and arrogance is not defined by race, gender, or religion. Further, talking demographics is not racist, it is demographics. She has disappointed me by not thoroughly doing her job and that is neither racist, sexist, or anti-religion. It is merely a disservice to her readers, one she now shares with many in media who are of many stripes and colors.

[TwoCentsWorth]

Thank you for the excellent commentary on B. Ehrenreich's article. Ehrenreich is old enough and has had sufficient experience to have avoided getting into lock-step thinking with some of the "talking heads" who offer little in the way of substance or new information.

[thepoliticalcat]

Perhaps you'd like to read what the Belfast Telegraph had to say about Mrs. Clinton's participation in the peace process in Ireland. Note that the Clinton campaign never addressed McDowell's article, and neither did her purported supporters, Paisley, Ahearn, Hime, McAteer, etc., have word one to say in Mrs. Clinton's defense. You will also note that someone who actually is responsible for the peace process has some very interesting remarks regarding Clinton's veracity.

[Northshorewoman]

All of which Barbara thought she could skip in her criticism of Sen. Clinton. I agree that it all should be read, as all of the names I listed don't all totally agree, either, most humans don't. Nonethess, what is most disturbing to me is that I know Barbara is a good journalist and now I'm wondering why she was not in this piece? Fair and balanced is about presenting both sides or, particularly in column writing, at least giving a nod to the "other side," which gives readers the information that there is more than one truth than their own, which in the best of worlds sends them off to explore all sides on their own, from which they draw their own conclusions. A columnist should be a provocateer, not a writer of his or her own Gospel.

[TwoCentsWorth]

To: Northshorewoman and To: Amminadab

Kudos to both of you. When Senator Clinton is sworn in as President of the U.S. I hope you two will be in her cabinet. This country needs people who are intelligent, informed, articulate and dedicated -- your voices and views should be heard. I initially had Mike on this list but he failed the "dedicated" criterion, apparently because he ran out of energy. Again, thanks to both of you -- and to Mike as well..

[Northshorewoman]

Thanks!

[raker]

Hillary was done in by her acting like she thinks a man would act. When women try this they tend to mimic a burlesque of a man's temperament. It's usually the most loathsome man they can imagine. Girls think the people love loathsome men. Go figure. It can be very funny except when lives are on the line, as they were when Hillary voted to invade Iraq - because that's what the caricature of a man in her brain would have done. We want a strong, honorable person - not someone who's good at acting like a strong, honorable person.

[Northshorewoman]

Sen. Clinton did not vote to go to war with Iraq.

[aelend]

I LOVE Barbara Ehrenreich, and I completely agree with her on this one. I recently wrote a blog post on MobLogic.tv about the same kind of thing, though it focused more on Clinton's recent shift toward using her female-ness as an excuse to stay in the race (women didn't stop fighting for equal rights, so she's not going to stop now). It really pissed me off, so I wrote about it.

The accompanying show asks people whether they think Clinton should drop out of the race.

If you're interested, the blog post is here: http://www.moblogic.tv/blog/2008/05/13/domestic-abuse/

And here's the show: http://www.moblogic.tv/video/2008/05/13/get-the-hill-out/

I'd love to hear what you guys think about it.

[McPander]

I don't pretend to be an expert but it would seem that there has been a leader of the party for the last 16 years. That would be Bill Clinton. He has been behind the scenes controlling the party for the past 8 years.
He is responsible for all the weak leaders. Who was the head of the DNC for the 2004 elections? Gee it was Terry McAuliffe what a coincidence.
Its not very complicated. The weakness in the democratic party over the past 8 years has been due to the Clinton's desire to win the election in 2008 and take them back to the White House.
Did Mr. Clinton campaign as strongly for Al Gore as he has for his wife? no
Did Mr. Clinton campaign as strongly for John Kerry as he has for his wife? no
The plan has always been to have HRC serve 6 years in the senate then run for the white house. Everybody knows that.
Would that have been possible if Al Gore had been elected? no. Chances are he would have served 8 years and the his vice president would have had the shoe in for the nomination.
Would that had happened if John Kerry had won the white house? no.
There is a man behind the curtain in the Democratic Party and its Bill Clinton. Just look at who was on the campaign for John Kerry. All Clinton plants.
So i thank God for Howard Dean.
Think about it.

[Pythia]

There is a flaw in your didactic strategy..­. by stating Bill Clinton purposely made McAuliffe DNC chairman in 2004 knowing he was weak......­.. how do you explain that he was hired to shill for Hillary, and unlike others like her old campaign manager and Mark Penn, is still on the job? (Not saying he's doing a good one, I'm no Tim Russert fan but I did love his comeback that 'Big Russ" was still on his Barcalounger watching the show, not up in heaven drinking scotch. When Terry blows it, he really blows it.)

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Your comments, plus the ones by McFlipFlop below, pretty much sum up the situation as I see it. Who would have thought in 1992 that the Clintons, who appeared as the hope of the party, would ever turn out to be the betrayers of it? Republican policies like NAFTA, enabling Bush to invade Iraq to (hopefully) establish Hillary's credentials as a strong leader and selling out Gore and Kerry by lukewarm aid, is this really the hope we thought we saw in 1992?

It is absolutely shameful behavior and on top of this Hillary has set back feminism 50 years. The whining about misogamy, the tears before primaries and the requests to change the rules for her special needs all have done more disservice to women than a trainload of actual sexist males ever could.

[bikemessenger]

Well said!

[Northshorewoman]

NAFTA was accepted as it was as the best deal the President could get out of Congress at the time, with the full intention of Al Gore to go back to and put back the fair and equitable piece they new was missing. Globalism could not/ can not be stopped. They got what they could, understanding that it would be much easier to tweak it than to re-do it later. But we know what happened there and President Bush, sure as hell did not tweak it. Sen. Clinton did not vote to go to war in Iraq. The Clintons did what they were asked to do in 2000 and 2004 -- or NOT. Feminism: The right to choose anything, despite race, gender, religon -- accepting civil dialogue in the open market -- but not attacks from True Believers.

[gini85]

Maybe you don't pretend to be an expert because you couldn't possibly fool anyone who has a clue about what is going on. So are you suggesting that Bill Clinton controls the Supreme Court that ultimately got George Bush elected since Gore won the popular vote. Of course Bill is going to push harder for his wife, she's his wife, hardly amounts to a conspiracy. And what does McAuliffe's being the chairman of the DNC have to do with anything? Before that it was Andrews who has come out in support of Obama.

[Northshorewoman]

Excuse me, but Al Gore made the choice NOT to have President Clinton campaign for him.

[avicenna]

I think it would be naive for anyone to think women are not as aggressive as men - we (women) have been "trained" to be aggressive in a much more deceptive manner. Everyone knows when it comes to manipulation and passive-aggressive behaviour, women are far more skilled - adaptation that has come of necessity in this society. What I find unpalatable is when women - such as Hillary - pull the victim card to justify the bleeding scratch marks their claws leave after lashing out - even when they are the aggressor. These are not the qualities one would hope in a leader whose main job is to heal - not tear up - the scars left around the world and within America following 8 years of the Bush administration.
I have to say, I seriously doubt that PMS is much of an issue for Hillary these days - maybe hot flushes?

[trailrunner9]

Wow, listen to this blantant sexist verbage to describe female shortcomings. Spoken like a true man/pathetic woman. Very, very sad how brainwashed into male culture and self-identity they truly are. I always say women are their own worst enemies.

[Trittydi]

Love the article.

BUT you owe Janice Karpinski an apology. Seriously. Look into it.
*

[McFlipFlop]

My favorite line, "She's been visibly angry for months, if not decades...­"

When I heard she was running, I was aghast. Who in the world thought she had the character for President?

Love what Molly had to say: She wrote this column in January 2006, shortly before her death, a year before Clinton or Obama announced. The article is titled, "I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President.­"

http://freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304

AUSTIN, Texas --- I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

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. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges...

[lobo1939]

Thank you, I had forgotten how right Molly always was. We miss her and need another Molly badly.

[Rule Of Law]

I see flashes of her in Erenreich. These times bring out the best and the worst in us all. I think Barbara will rise to the occasion.

[Rule Of Law]

Another poster here, bauersox, has claimed that Molly Ivisn would not just not support Obama, but detest his ways. I'm so glad you found this article by her. That should lay to rest any more equivocation of the part of the above mentioned, Republican, poster.

[Rule Of Law]

Ivins...