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

[BatedBreath]

I don't agree that Hillary demonstrated innate female moral inferiority. I think it was Clinton moral inferiority (and I don't include Chelsea in this). On the other hand, I do not believe women are morally superior either. The fallacy was in thinking that women were morally superior when morality, whether superior or inferior, is not gender specific.

[amosduncan]

Pro Obama women like Ehrenreich and Stephine Miller have fought more
ruthlessly and nastily than Hillary Clinton; and I have lost all respect for
them. Notice the lack of examples as Ehrereich calls Clinton a racist.
This has been the tackiest element in the campaign and supposedly
what Obama was supposed to be against.

Faludi, as usual, is right on.

[scornflakes]

Actually, she didn't call her a racist. She said that the Clinton campaign has been "racially-tinged", and if at least ten examples to support that assertion don't pop immediately to the front of your mind then you haven't been paying attention.

[Simonanunhappydem]

Exactly: Ehrenreich accuses Clinton to be a racist but in such a way that it can be denied, hence scornflakes' hair splitting. I fully agree with amosduncan: the way Ehrenreich and other Obama sect members have been attacking Clinton is much more disgusting than anything that happened in this campaign. If anything will split the party it is these dishonest tactics by the Obama hangers-on.

[lisakaz2]

Where has either been nasty? It seems to me a lot of HRC supports resent losing and wanna blame any female who didn't "go along."

[marignymitch]

The the country would be a happier place if she'd worked out her daddy issues in the therapist's office instead of on the national stage. Same goes for Junior. It's not a gender issue.

[jojojo]

HRC? I voted for her twice for senate. I can no longer support her because of her continued votes for the war ( made form political reasons, I believe, to look tough), and the racist and (yes) sexist tone of her campaign. And then playing the gender card with her " those mean men are sooooo mean to little ol' me" BS.


Violent women? Go to menweb.org to see articles from the NY Times and elsewhere about battered men, female sexual predators, etc. (i.e.: 37% of 911 calls for domestic violence are placed by men...NY Times article written by a woman)

[adcatlett]

LOL, Whatever! This post was so funny. LOL Especially her "sexist tone". LMAO. Please stop, I can't breathe. LOL WWHHHHHAAAAA!

[jojojo]

The uncomfortable truth often evokes nervous laughter.

[romanrose]

There is no reason to be proud of a woman who has behaved as Karl Rove. Worse, than that, really, is her complete loss of dignity and a completely visible lack of integrity. I am a white, working-class American woman who was looking forward to the Hillary Clinton candidacy more than words can describe. But the truth is that the truth always comes out and people will always show you who they are, if you're paying attention that is. Rather than being a source of pride she is a very serious disappointment, indeed. Her behavior and that of her husband has been utterly appalling. I am not now nor will I ever be proud of her nor am I alone in my sentiments.

[Star123]

But the truth is that the truth always comes out and people will always show you who they are, if you're paying attention that is.

Exactly--and wait'll you find out the truth about Prince Charming. It will be sad to watch.

[tkunz]

A very stimulating piece.

But I think that at the end of the day, Hillary's personality traits - such as being an over-achiever, a demagogue, a panderer and one incapable of learning anything but political lessons when she should have learned more about the world that she wants so desperately to control - play more into her conduct than her sex.

It just grates on people (at least those who pay attention) when a person who doesn't accept any responsibility or show personal remorse over her own disasterous mistakes, will break down in self-pitying tears when things get hard; or have a verbal, self-pitying fit about something as trivial as being selected to answer the first question - in a two-person debate.

[aquaglass]

Hillary is tough because she has experienced years of abuse that she signed up for when she decided to take on the male population in politics.

She's smart, and can hold up to any one of them and that's her problem. They're afraid of her!
Most men aren't comfortable working with woman let alone working for one!

If she went all wishy washy, they would have laughed her out a long time ago, which they are trying to do now. She's standing up to all of them and forging on. How about some credit where credit is due?
It's a sexist thing, it's a male thing.

[BlackLeatherRain]

I agree and disagree.

Sexism does still exist, especially in a male-dominated area such as politics. Were she a house marm baking cookies for her grandkids, she'd never made it as far as she has. She deserves credit for withstanding the storm of the Republican spin machine throughout her husband's Presidency and her own Senate race. Lesser men and women would have fallen by now.

Having said that, Clinton's current failures are hers alone, and can't be solely or even mainly rested on the shoulders of the spectre of sexism. There are too many personal, explicit failures of her campaign that are hers alone that have driven her back from the nomination.

[aht772e]

I meant kyl -lieberman, not lieberman- ryl

[jojojo]

Yeah, she only went wishy-washy when she wanted to, playing the gender card for all it was worth, even sniffling a bit for us in New Hampshire.

I'm afraid of her, you're right! I'm afraid of someone who talks about total obliteration of Iran. Rings painfully close to McOld's singing " Bomb bomb bomb. Bomb bomb Iran"

[nomadic]

Nonsense.
I defended Hillary for years to my military spouse peers (I'm one of the few guys in those ranks). The hate for her was palpable among those women. Things have changed. I'll still defend her, though, oddly she's not as hated as she was before in those same circles. Despite that I do not support her. It was the anti-flag burning amendment she co-sponsored to suck up to military retirees. With a health care crisis in full bloom and the economy starting to show signs of serious problems, and she sponsors worthless legislation to protect a flag, our symbol, which was not being threatened, while real issues were being ignored, well, that was when I saw the real Hillary Clinton. She has not failed to disappoint me since.
If I have to, I'll vote for her.
That's not a victory for me, just a ritual I'll endure in the hope that the next time around I can vote for someone who will do more than capitulate and snuggle up to whiners.

[okmama]

no it isn't, it's a witch thing!

[qwr]

I suppose that it is rough. but for her to take out her psychodynamics on the country drains me of sympathy. We are talking about hundreds of thousands dead, after all. Furthermore, I see a lot of women in high office who are under the same pressures, and they don't need any apologies.

[jojojo]

Female violence?

Go to http://www.menweb.org/ if you want info on female violence.

There you can see the NY Times article, written by a woman, showing that 37% of 911 domestic violence calls are placed by men.

Also click on headings at the bottom of the page to find articles and studies done on female sexual predators, female abuse of children, battered men and more.

As for HRC, yes, she's shown that women can be ( at least) as dirty as men. I voted for her twice, but her support for the war and her racist ( and sexist) campaign leave me angry and disappointed.

[heywhat]

To have ever believed in the innate superiority of women belies the notion that you know much about women but to write that HRC demonstrates innate female inferiority once again demonstrates why it is that I doubt the ability of the Obama nation to move into a post partisan world.

http://strictlyanecdotal.com/2008/05/08/thank-you-gary-hart-for-reminding-me-of-my-place.aspx

[Ides]

....Innate? Who said anything about "innate" female inferiority other than a single hyper-sensitive self-crucifier?

Hillary is female and she is inferior, but there is nothing "innate" about how she came to that point. And I am far too jaded to pretend to give positive lip service to someone who has so debased herself. It is like listening to a screaming child and saying, "Don't worry, he'll tire himself out" or "Well, he's young, he doesn't know any better."

Hillary knows better; she does it anyway.

[DinOhio]

Well said. One of the biggest disappointments about Hillary is her lack of intellectual integrity during this primary campaign. She does know better. Or should. She had a unique opportunity to fashion the template for a female national candidate in the future, but she frittered that away with dividing instead of uniting. She could have run as a woman of strength and substance instead of a strong woman who is ruthless. She has carried a very high negative rating with voters for years - and that has been earned. It has little if anything to do with her gender. She touts her strengths now among white middle class men, so she can't have it both ways.

[BatedBreath]

I agree with you that the traits HRC exhibits cannot be laid on all women. However, I don't quite understand the connection between your comments about HRC, female inferiority/superiority, and Obama. Care to elaborate?

[MsLiz]

That is one long run-on sentence. What did it say?

The link you cited was excellent.

[patmancando]

I really agree with you and the link go the article is great!

[Teadye]

Hell hath no Fury like a woman scorned.

[patmancando]

And there are millions of women who feel scorned by the deceptive, deceitful, dirty race baiting of the Obam campaign, the Hillary bashing MSM and the DNC not settling of the Florida/Michigan primary vote which Hillary won while it could impact the outcome, 300 delegates and 2 million popular votes disenfranchised by Obama who refused a re-vote in both states. Yes, you better believe hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Obama and the Democrats will learn that in the General Election. Leave them alone and they will come home..................many won't. Good luck to Obama in the GE.........he will need it!

[chelliza]

Good luck to the country if you let McCain get to be president. What do you really care about? If it was our country, you would not be considering a McCain presidency out of spite (or any other reason).

[Waltb31]

Point out ONE instance, just ONE instance of race-baiting by Obama. For that matter, WHEN did Obama bash Hillary?. He NEVER got into any of Hillary's "issues".
If you are a repug troll, just say so. It is clear we need a united party to win this fall. If you truly are a Hillary supporter, then you should realize that fact.

[DinOhio]

Yadda yadda

[funnyguy]

Barbara: Congratulations. You have written the best single analysis of the character of HRC and her campaign yet in the public domain.

[okjoel]

Being a leader is something neither inherently male or female. It's when we think it is and subscribe to that picture of the stereotypical leader that we get it in charicature form. To wit; Hillary, who as I see it imitates a stereotype instead of being authentic.

[JMBrodie]

No, HRC just showed her own personal inferiority. Her character took a hit, not the collective character of women. This loss is a burden she must be responsible for.

[egal]

That's the way her run SHOULD be viewed, but there are plenty out there who will view this precedent-setting female candidacy for president as evidence women are as bad at leading as they are at voting. Neither is necessarily true, but the actions taken by the first example of any population will inevitably reflect upon that whole group of which they are only one member because the human mind is designed to read patterns and expect future examples to be in the line of our first impression.

[Northshorewoman]

Feminism: The right to choose anything, despite race, gender, religon -- accepting civil dialogue in the open market -- but not attacks from True Believers.

[NewtC]

Hillary is not quitting yet because she’s about to win big in West Virginia. They have an open primary in WV, and just like PA, white REPUBLICANS will vote in droves for Clinton, the Democrat they most want to run against next fall. This is not about Obama being unelectable, it’s about cheating Republicans subverting our Democratic primaries. Take a look at the results in states that have open primaries. And don’t talk to me about exit polls, I personally know Republicans who voted for Hillary AND claimed they were Democrats in the exit polls. They’re laughing their butts off at us because Hillary will be basing her superdelegate coup on their votes, claiming a) white working class folks won't vote for an AA, and b) that the Superdelegates should pander to this alleged racism and give her the nomination instead.

For all of you who are thinking Hillary is done, watch out. She’ll come back with a big FAKE WIN in WV claiming this proves her (racist) point. Unfortunately, her win will be based on subversive Republican votes, not Democrats.

[gbht12]

NewtC
That happened in the Texas primary. Ditto Heads surround me and they turned out like little sheep and pushed the button for Clinton at the same time calling her a bi*ch. It was disgusting, so don't tell us that she is winning this without Republican support. Not because they LOVE her, they detest her. You need to understand that they want her BIG time but it is not going to happen so everyone needs to wrap their minds around it.

If this was reversed, Obama would have left the race for the good of the party a long time ago.

[DinOhio]

Hillary won the popular vote in Texas by 100,00 votes - 116,000 Republicans are said to have crossed over. Do the math.

[way2muchsense]

Would be just swell if the party took control of this process, don't ya think? I'd rather do the whole thing online and restrict it to Democrats who have been members in good standing for at least a year. QUALIFIED Democrats get a card in the mail with a PIN code and everybody votes over a 30 day period in April. The votes are counted, and either (1) somebody gets >50%, which is wonderful, since that individual has the support of a majority of the party, or (2) you have a handful of front runners who would then be encouraged to form coalitions prior to the convention. This sounds scary, but the voting part would be over with already. It's just a matter of who throws his or her support to whom. Either way, we get a stronger candidate without the obscene expense, the 21 pointless "debates" or the ridiculous circular firing squad we've been witnessing time and time again.

Think about it. We're picking someone to represent our party in the general election; that part ought to be the least expensive and least pain-in-the-ass part of the process. Think about going to war, and getting our Army ready to fight by giving them live ammo and pitting the 10th Mountain Division against the 101st Airborne, the "winner" getting to engage the enemy. Does that make a lick of sense?

[MsLiz]

Only the computer literate could vote.

[MaureenSharkey]

Let's not forget how Rush Limbaugh at first was trying to get voters to vote for Obama. Republicans voted en masse for Obama in Wisconsin and IL.

[gbht12]

I don't thin so MaureenSharkey. It has always been about Hillary. Check his blogs and website out. He is one sick man regardless but their greedy little eyes have always been on Clinton. She has baggage that they are very familiar with and anxious to rummage through.

[fishwanda]

Come on, Maureen,
are you really implying that Obama won IL due to Limbaugh Republicans?

[DinOhio]

Limbaugh didn't start his "operation chaos" until Ohio & Texas.

[aquaglass]

She will win West VA because the demographics are on her side.
Rush's "operation chaos" won't have much effect here, or Kentucky.
These are key groups that Obama can't get.

[Northshorewoman]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Sen. Clinton is not quitting because the race is not over 'til someone wins.

[SLal]

This post by Barbara is a complete disappointment. Her failure to see how her judgement in the sentence "Hillary Clinton smashed the myth of innate female moral superiority in the worst possible way -- by demonstrating female moral inferiority" is concluded by a biased measurement system is unfortunate. Take your thumb off the scale, and ask for the same and not better from women as from men. Fausia looks more fausia on men than it does on women. Pinstripes make more of a statement on women than they do on men. Identical words and actions are viewed differently when said/acted by a woman than by a man, and that is the problem. Your conclusions completely miss this, and your lack of awareness of your bias is jarring.

I find the use Susan Faludi's article to kick off an article that reinforces the lack of recognition of the unjust measurement system is ironic.

I used to be a fan of Barbara, but I now read the same words of her books as painfully simplistic and out of touch.

[jojojo]

Your bias is jarring as well.

HRC used racist, sexist tone in her campaign, and was still willing to play the gender card " oh those mean ol' men are just such meanies to poor little me".

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.

[BlackLeatherRain]

I was under the impression that Barbara's comment was not that females are inferior morally, but that females are just as capable as demonstrating inferior morals as men are.

Perhaps I misunderstood Barbara's intent, but the rest of her article seems to support my impression.

[MsLiz]

In the closing paragraph the author says: " . . . the values once thought to be uniquely and genetically female -- such as compassion and an aversion to violence -- can be found in either sex . . . . "

This supports your comment.