Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Why Younger Women Aren't Supporting Hillary
Why Younger Women Aren't Supporting Hillary
Carlotta Cooper
I used to teach freshman English at a local college. If there was one thing I dreaded more than grading essays it was the couple of weeks I was required to spend teaching my students about literary criticism. I derived no joy at all in trying to explain postmodern literary theory to 18-year-olds, only headaches. But it was during these classes, as I taught the different "waves" of feminist criticism, that I became aware that there was a wide gap between some of the ideas I held and what my students believed about women.
I discovered, to my great surprise, that many young women intensely disliked anything to do with "feminism." At first I thought this was a right wing backlash against the feminism of the 1970s and '80s. I thought these girls had been raised by mothers who had been influenced by Phyllis Schlafly and come from ultra-conservative families. But I discovered this wasn't necessarily the case. They wanted equal opportunities for women. They didn't believe women had to stay in the home. They wanted careers. They were outspoken and thought for themselves. What they didn't like were the tenets of what we now call "second wave" feminism -- the feminism that sees women struggling against a male power system. They didn't think that fight was relevant to their lives.
From some of the young women I talk to who support Barack Obama and from the things I read, it seems that many people identify Hillary Clinton with this older kind of feminism, fairly or not. She's a woman who came of age in the heyday of the second wave of feminism, when women were actively fighting for equal rights, when Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique was still an influential book and Germaine Greer was making people think with her book The Female Eunuch. "Women's Liberation" was not just a slogan. Even when I was a little girl I can remember women doing many things for the very first time: the first time a woman got into a certain veterinary school, or got into West Point, or went into a certain career. These things were big news at the time. They really were breakthroughs for women.
I have to admit that it's kind of a let-down to find out that young women today don't really consider these things important. They seem to feel that this particular war has been won and there is no more need for feminism, hence the backlash against it with third wave feminism and "post-feminism." Yes, women are people, like we're all "people." But I think it's clear that gender differences exist, in whatever ways we want to measure them. Not only that, but the primaries have brought out evidence that, in the news media, at the very least, there exists some extreme sexism. I don't know what else you could call the attitudes and comments of someone like Chris Matthews on MSNBC, among others, in his remarks about Senator Clinton. It amazes me that younger women are not bothered by these attitudes and comments. I find them extremely offensive.
Many people have become sensitized -- even hypersensitized -- to issues of racism in this campaign, and words and attitudes are being examined and questioned. But sexism seems to go largely unnoticed or, if it is noticed, is dismissed as irrelevant. "That's old. It doesn't matter anymore. It doesn't affect us today." Imagine saying the same things about race! Double standard? Are not both forms of discrimination deplorable? Many Obama supporters seem to feel that if the sexism is directed at Senator Clinton then it's not so bad -- it's even amusing -- because she's fair game. Sometimes I have to double check to see if some comments are actually being made by people in the Democratic party.
Women are still underpaid in our society and there are many subtle forms of discrimination. We should also remember that even if things are comparatively rosy here in the U.S. for the women who support Senator Obama, that doesn't really help the billions of women in the rest of the world who are subject to harm and discrimination everyday because of their gender. I'm not even delving into domestic abuse and violence against women in America which would change this picture even more. The Democratic party doesn't seem to be interested in hearing that message about women right now.
In some places women really are the victims of discrimination and worse -- victims of systematic rape in parts of Africa, victims of the slave trade, victims who work for slave wages in Asia. But I think it's excessive to toss around the term "victim" when discussing Hillary Clinton's supporters. That's simply an attempt to belittle and marginalize the not-so-young women who support Senator Clinton. It's a shorthand term for saying Senator Clinton's supporters are complaining and not falling into line with what the Obama supporters want them to do. It's a way to discourage other people from wanting to be aligned with them.
I hear over and over from young women that they would love to see a woman president but not "this woman." They seem to think she is too tough, too much like a man, that she has somehow become one of the boys in order to beat them at their own game. I honestly don't see what they see. I do see someone tough -- tough enough to be president. There are tough women in the world. There always have been. Plenty of them. What's wrong with that? Are they saying that she is not feminine enough to be president? Oh, boy. I suddenly have this truly troubling image of a woman in the Oval Office leaning seductively on the presidential desk in a short skirt and smiling flirtatiously at the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We've really come a long way from feminism if that's the case, haven't we? I can only pray that's not what some of these younger women have in mind for a "properly" feminine female president. I prefer the androgynous pantsuits and a tough as nails woman.
Other people claim that Senator Clinton "plays the victim." That she used her husband's infidelity to elicit sympathy from people in order to win votes. Yeah, right. How many people have you voted for out of sympathy? That wouldn't get me to go to the polls. And, by the way, that affair was years and years ago. How long do you think it would help her? Be realistic. This seems like just another effort to marginalize and define Senator Clinton as a "woman" candidate -- someone that her opponents can label as "Bill's wife." Surely this campaign has shown she is much more than that. She has a record of her own, and more time in the Senate that Senator Obama. She campaigns daily. There's plenty of grist for the mill for those looking for things to bash her with without trying to define her as a "victim." She seems less like a victim to me than almost anyone I can imagine. I don't think she had to be married to the former president to get where she is today. People who believe that may be underestimating her.
(I'm not sure how someone can be both too tough and play the victim, but Senator Clinton gets accused of both.)
I think the fact is that if you like Senator Clinton you will find plenty of good reasons to support her. And, if you don't, you will believe anything you want to about her. Feminism is just another spice in the pot in this election.
Over and over I hear from some of the older women who support Senator Clinton that they believe that the younger women who oppose her and who often dismiss the idea that feminism is relevant in 2008 will someday discover that the playing field is not as level for the sexes as younger women believe. As they become older and encounter discrimination in the workplace, as they become mothers themselves, as they earn some gray hairs, their perspective about feminism might change.
Senator Clinton may represent, for some, a different version of how a woman should handle power. Whether gender is a consideration or not, approximately half the people in the Democratic party seem to like the combination of her abilities and her proposals. No, I do not think people should vote for someone on the basis of gender. Period. Faced with a Condoleeza Rice, a Catherine Harris, or a Harriet Myers (as someone asked me) on the ballot, I would vote unequivocally no to all of them. Vote for the person who, in your opinion, is the best candidate. Vote for the person who would make the best president. Vote for the person who would have the best chance of being elected in the November election.
But many younger women are flailing Senator Clinton for not living up to their image of what a female candidate should be today. That's like having a perfectly good dog and being dissatisfied with it because it doesn't meow and purr. It's too bad they can't accept her for herself and the very good president she might be.
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
I think its clear that what you state is confidence. Without it, you will continue to be on the bottom of your own pity party.
What amazes me is these articles that don't deal with, what is for me and strong women I know, the main issue -- character. Hillary Clinton trys to play victim but she is being given a free pass. Her lies have not been played over and over and over for days, neither have the networks called them LIES, which they are. She has been lieing throughout her campaign. She has shown she is not be trusted. She pretty much will say whatever she thinks will get her votes. She changes with the weather. She is nasty and vindictive. The states she doesn't win, are unimportant, as is Richardson, Barack Obama's followers are blind, according to her. This is a personal attack. Are we then supposed to vote for her? Barack has never attacked her supporters. He continually speaks of positive things. She ridicules the idea of hope. Why expend so much energy over someone you deemed unimportant? Her campaign acted as if Richardson was their slave and they were lord over his mind. Any decent person would respect his right to change his mind. She then tries to make it seem that Barack is preventing MI and FL votes from being counted, which is not up to him. Barack said he will go along with whatever decisions were made, by the powers that be. She wants rule changes to whatever will benefit her. If the circumstances were reversed, we all know she would not be complaining.
First off racism is far worse than sexism. I don't recall women being murder by men in white hoods.
Second or all It has nothing to do with sex Hillary Clinton is just to much of a bitch for most people. She is like bush with ovaries. If she was genuine then I don't think people would have a problem with her. Last and certainly not least why the hell do we keep referring to Obama as the black candidate when he is mixed.
Women are murdered by men in regular close every day. They're beaten, raped, incested and killed at a truly alarming rate. An estimated 1 in 3 American women has experienced violence up close and personal. I don't deny racism is a horrible, terrible thing, but to compare the two and determine which is "better" is a ridiculous argument.
That said, I don't like Hillary either.
I am young.. 26. I support Hillary, but agree with everything you said METRYJEN.
HEY! LET'S ALL CUT THAT SHIT OUT.
Let's not even begin to get drawn into a debate about which form of oppression is worse or more prevalent or insidious than the other.
Let's all just agree they are ALL horrible and ALL need to be dealt with SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Neither takes precedence over the other and both CAN be tackled at the same time, even using the same tools.
One of the wonderful things that Barack Obama points out is that attacking inequality as a whole addresses EVERYONE'S issues.
He's not ONLY for civil rights, but for HUMAN rights across the board for ALL people.
So put away your Estrogen guns and unball your Black Fists people.
We are ALL Americans and we ALL deserve freedom and equality.
We are not a collection of red states and blue states, Black states and White states, rich states and poor states, but the UNITED STATES.
Obama in 08' ;-)
Ms. Cooper
I enjoyed reading your portrayal of today's issues of women's rights as opposed to years earlier.
In response to the comment by randiS on the first "wave" of feminists, the suffragists, reflects what I found when I researched the women's rights movement in the 1800s and early 1900s for writing my novel, "Return to Dos Encinos". I was appalled by the discrimination that was prevalent in that era. The lead character, a women's rightist, participates in a hazardous cattle drive in her campaign for equal rights. Encouraging to see how far we've come.
charlesclarknovels
www.charlesclarknovels.com
This is a strawman argument. There isn't a single feminist Obama supporter, or non-feminist identifying female Obama supporter that I know who considers struggles for gender equality "over" or meaningless.
As brief as I can be - the reaction against second-wave feminism among young women is the flip-side of what I'm told produced second-wave feminism in the first place: the belief that among the progressive struggles at the time, women's rights were being shoved to the side. Younger women see the opposite of that among older feminists. They're embarrassed by its exclusively white, middle class focus. They're tired of "women" being a code for "white women" - a good case in point of THAT phenomenon is Robin Morgan's essay "Goodbye to all that 2" which, in endorsing Hillary Clinton, explicitly attempted to render the opinions of all non-white women irrelevant with the stroke of a pen. And they can't understand how feminists could support someone whose policies, up until she decided to run for President, have been consistently pro-war and anti-worker, which, due to the achievements of second-wave feminism, are now women's issues too.
That's my take on it. If you can speak for a demographic that you don't represent, then so can I.
THANK YOU for that, Brooklyn! I feel the exact same way - that the feminists in America are divided on ageism with the older Hillary women arguing that younger Obama women don't care about feminism and aren't really feminists to begin with, giving us no credit for our efforts to expand feminism beyond the white straight middle class woman model. And after so many wonderful years of arguing together that feminism naturally opposes war and racism and aggressive capitalism, the older Hillary feminists sweep the shady records of Clinton and her surrogates on these issues under the carpet seemingly just to get A woman in the White House and then have the audacity to call the Obama girls traitors to the feminist cause. (On YouTube you can watch Clinton barking at those FEMINIST organizations Code Pink and N.O.W. - comprised of women of ALL ages - as they chastise her for her Iraq War vote.) They have a right to their opinion and their vote, but this tendency among the Hillary feminists (Tina Brown, Erica Jong, and now Carlotta Cooper) to assume our motivations is condescending and in no way going to win us over.
to quote Malcom...(no not that one) He described her to a T
Again, it's all about Hillary Clinton not about her party. I can see how the concerns of down-ticket Dems are real and significant - it's the first time in a LONG time that downticket Dems in Red States and others have a chance at winning nationwide given the poor state of our nation today after 7+ years of Bush rule. After a bloody fight for the nomination, Hillary on the ticket practically guarantees their defeat and might even further Dems losses of "secure" seats.
What you're seeing is not a "fighter" but the arrogance and stubbornness of one putting their own interests before the greater good of others. And it should be no surprise that she will continue this behavior after she gets in the White House. She has had every conceivable advantage entering this contest which is why she was proclaimed "inevitable" last year. Yet due to her incompetence, inexperience and duplicity with the American people she's behind in the delegate count today.
We can speak, if we listen with an open heart and mind. You hit it on the money. Many people consider civil rights movement a bad thing, but it benefited white females more than any other group.
I have never heard anyone say Hillary Clinton was too strong. As for playing victim, remember the debate "I always get asked the first question..." (What's the big deal) or "The media is harder on me than Obama." Give me a break.
Being influenced by three generations of strong women, I am appalled that women's organizations want us to elect Hillary, no matter her character. I taught my son, as well as my daughter and granddaughters, that a person's character is the most important issue, especially, if you are deciding something as important . I am all for feminism, but for me it doesn't mean vote for the woman, even if she's ethically challenge. That would be the same type of behavior that kept women down for so long. I would like to think we are beyond that. I would gladly vote for a woman, but one who has mine and the country's best interest at heart. Hillary is governed by ego and a sense of entitlement. Her campaign has been steeped in turmoil, the same with this primary, and her husband's presidency. Our country would get more of the same if she were to be elected.
My mother once supported Hillary. The thing is, Hillary does things that my mother would never do or approve of. When Mom hears about Hillary's shenanigans her first reaction is always: "Oh she didn't do that, did she? I don't think she'd do that." But then she learns that Hillary did indeed "do that." I think one real turning point for Mom was Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama. Mom always adored Caroline and her NY Times endorsement was compelling to both my parents who had leaned towards Hillary and Edwards respectively. My parents feel about Obama, a little like they feel about computers: that he's remarkable if unfamiliar. But just as they've learned to check email, they've come to support Obama.
As for younger women and the rejection of the angry feminist rant against the lack of opportunity, the problem is that the rant never changed, even as progress was made. Moreover, Hillary has dumped on some vulnerable women in a not-very-feminist sort of way: particularly all those who were harassed and wooed by her husband. Moreover, some of her biggest supporters are tremendous anti-feminists who are voting for her entirely because they believe she'll let Bill make all the decisions. And she does not discourage this view.
I don't think Hillary is tough at all. Recently our country has started conflating toughness with ugliness. This is a Bush era boondoggle and Hillary has signed on to it. I, for one, am ready for change.
You are so right, I think the reason Hillary voted for war was she wanted to appear tough. She also gambled that America would not wake up out of the fog of "if you say anything against the war you are emboldened the enemy.." My opinion, she knew her hopes for the presidency and thought her vote would add her in this election. It's true a lot of her behavior and votes have not been pro feminism. I have trouble with her lack of character.
I have a daughter, 29 living in the south and my son is 34, living here in the DC area. My children have decided, (without my input), that Obama is better suited and better qualified to be president. Another Hillary lie is she has more experience. I don't know anywhere that will hire someone based on their spouse's experience. I will apply for CEO of the company that will allow me to just put the number of years experience I have, without elaboration. I think it was unethical for Hillary Clinton to praise McCain while tearing down Obama. Obama has the integrity and the temperment to work with people. Clinton comes across as phony. Obama taught Constitutional Law at Harvard. Our government is based on the Constitution. Obama had over five years in the Illinois Senate prior to coming to the U.S. Senate and his chosen work was in the trenches, helping those less fortunate people of all races and ethnicities.
I am in Hillary's demographic, I am a smart, professional woman and I won't vote for her. When I did not vote for Michael Dukakis, no one accused me of being anti-Greek american. When I did not vote for George Bush, no one accused me of being a stupid white male hater. When I did not voter for Ronald Reagan, no one accused me of being anti-Hollywood actor. How dare anyone make assumptions about why I DON'T vote for someone!
To adapt an HRC speech: Human rights ARE human rights. There is no REAL difference between civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, religious rights, children's rights etc. That's what I think the younger PEOPLE of our nation are tapping into. We advance together or not at all.
I have four daughters; 18, 20, 28 and 30 and none of them will vote for Hillary because they don't trust her, they consider her an opportunist, manipulator and dissimulator as well as harsh and horsey in her pants suits and masculine posture. All of them have lived in India where femininity has nothing to do with provocativeness or flirtatiousness but rather modesty and a beauty, grace and strength that comes from within. Indira Gandhi was strong, smart and feminine, as is Sonia. Compared to the woman of the East Hillary is a screeching fish wife who won't hesitate to sell rotten fish as long as she makes her profit. Oh Papa! they say, we could never vote for her, she's like an angry old prune and Obama is smart, handsome and shining with love and light, he is one of us and America's only hope, he is in touch with his divine nature, does not belong to the past but is a bridge between the old and the new. Hillary is old stuff, her time has past; retire with your millions madam and let the new blood take over...
I too have daughters ages 22 and 25 and they say they will not vote for Hillary because they consider her to be mean,spiteful and dishonest. One of my daughters attends an Ivy league school and I've asked her who she thought her friends on campus would be voting for and she said that everyone she knew was voting for Obama and that all her friends hate Hillary. They don't consider her as a positive role model for younger woman.
Thanks for putting it so well! Ditto to both of you.
Agreed -- it's his grace and her lack of it. Oh dear, is this gracism?
I'm Hillary's perfect demographic, yet I agree with the younger women, not for any of the misleading reasons you state. There is a new feminism and I am interested in what our "daughters" have to say as it is THEIR time. We would have been loathe to listen to what our "mothers" told us we should be as women.
There is sexism in America, but we've made progress! The countries you mention as perpetuating severe abuses towards women would have our army crashing through their borders if these were white girls... so there is an element of racism, too. I have no interest in passing down my resentments to a fresh generation. I do want to educate them.
Hillary plays "victim" thinking that (along with other calculations) humanizes her. It 'appears' to rally her base. How insulting to suggest young women see a female as requiring an Ally McBeal wardrobe! Clinton is more like the male in this equation because she started with all the power of the party machine. Obama is more like the female. He started from a lower position with less recognition and gracefully fought his way into the public eye skirting the issues of his own 'ism'. Obama is community-oriented while Hillary is all about hierarchy.
To adapt an HRC speech: Human rights ARE human rights. There is no REAL difference between civil - women's - gay - religious - children's rights.... That's what I think the younger PEOPLE are tapping into. We advance together or
"I have no interest in passing down my resentments to a fresh generation."
....................................................................
Lynda, that is so right on and at the heart of the political race today. We need a fresh start, a sort of reset of our thinking . . . and worldview. Our youth and young adult today should not be burdened by the hatred, oppression, mistrust, divisiveness experienced by generations of yesterday. Our country has been torn apart by "isms" (classism, racism, sexism, etc) for far too long. The point is that as citizens of the USA, we have a vested interest to continue to perfect our imperfect union. As humans, we have an interest and obligation to relate to the needs of people in other countries.
When Shock and Awe commenced, my prayers went out for the mothers in Iraq. I know that as a mother, their dreams for their children are probably similar to the dreams I have for my child. Mother to mother, I could relate to their fear of what was to become of them and their family.
It is time for us all of look at our similaries and build on what we have in common.
Here's what I do as a TRUE feminist, I demand to be treated based on my merits, not my gender. And guess what? I then treat women based on their merits, not JUST their gender.
Why is it sexist when men discount women because of their gender and are rightly seen to suck for it, then why must I somehow grant Hillary special immunity because she happens to be female?
I don't like Hillary for her votes on Iraq, Kyl-Lieberman and that's what people say when she's overcompensating for being a woman. I didn't like her pandering by co-sponsoring a flag burning amendment, I didn't like her Bankruptcy of CAFTA votes. I'm not thrilled with her idea about freezing mortgage rates for 5 years or her mandatory buy in for health insurance companies. I don't like her lying things like Bosnia, NAFTA, Ireland, Macedonia, Rwanda all to try and conflate her supposed foreign relations credentials. I don't like that she was fine and dandy with saying MI and FL votes not counting were cool...until she was losing than she started whining and lately, lying about the votes and blaming others.
I'm tired that everytime anyone says something against her, that has everything to do with her general lack of scruples and/or her lying, she too frequently tries to blame it on sexism. Calling someone a liar, doesn't mean it's because she's a female= liar. It's because she is a liar, who happens to be a female.
I teach seniors in high school. You and I have very different experiences when it comes to opinions about Senator Clinton.
The senior female (and male) students I see every day - about 150 a day, every day - don't like Hillary Clinton because they don't trust her. Period. They think she lies - about NAFTA, about corporate lobbyist influences on her, about her real views on globalization and about her intentions regarding the war in Iraq.
They don't trust her, they think she will say anything to win. It has nothing to do with her age or her gender.
But it's true that young women are highly offended by the way that Hillary's feminists have tried to make them all feel there is something wrong with them if they don't support "the woman" no matter what. Frankly, that offends me too. If to be a feminist means that you can't support a man who is a much better candidate, then they (and I) don't want any part of feminism.
You said it. It is NOT HRC's gender, it's her life long manipulation, power-lust, lying , cheating, and dishonesty that women, old & young, reject. She is totally disingenuous and a loser!
BRAVO!
I agree with you, except that I'd add that a handful of wealthy, "White" Second Wave women don't own Feminism.
Since the origins of Second Wave Feminism in the post-WW2 civil rights & anti-war movements, women outside the narrow middle-class academic confines of the N.O.W. set have been expanding the definition of feminism. Lesbians, women of Colour, poor and working-class women & even empathetic men have had to fight with the "leadership" of the movement for inclusion - the same leadership which is trying to define the movement for us today.
As a Third Wave Feminist, it's my experience that feminism has progressed from where it was in the 1970's precisely because so many more of us have internalized feminist principles - it's not solely an intellectual exercise for me. I AM the living legacy of those who came before me & I look to Audre Lorde & Chrystos & Cherrie Moraga more than Steinem or Jong or Friedan.
"Stretch or drown / Evolve or die / The bridge I must be is the bridge to my own power / I must translate / My own fears / Mediate / My own weaknesses / I must be the bridge to nowhere / But my true self / And then / I will be useful"
- Donna Kate Rushin, "The Bridge Poem" taken from "This Bridge Called My Back"
As a mother to a young woman, I see her and her female friends as more empowered than the feminist of my generation; they don"t seem burdened by the sexism we faced. I also see their generation less burdened by racism and homophobia.
In Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech, he said, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election."
Hillary doesn"t speak to them in quite the same manner.
Carlotta! You are too close to the mirror to see the real picture. First of all most women do not identify with the feminist movement today because it was hijacked by the radical Lesbian wing. I do not mean this in a disrespectful way. Many women today do not want to be stereotyped as men haters. The reason is because they are not men haters. There has been some real garbage spewed forth from the leftovers of the past Feminist movement. The sooner you and those like you realize that the term "Feminism" has about as much appeal to young people as the word "Nazi" you will get it. What replaces the term "Feminism" is the term "egalitarianism". Feminism is an extremely ugly word to many women today. Women still have the same struggles but they will find better terms for implementing their ideals. You need to listen to the upcoming generations of women, they have something to tell you that you need to know. Quit thinking you are the master and every modern day women is stupid. They know what the problems are but they also know that your terms inflame and that you do not have the answers.
"What they didn't like were the tenets of what we now call "second wave" feminism -- the feminism that sees women struggling against a male power system. They didn't think that fight was relevant to their lives."
When the chorus of angry second-wave feminists (NOW, Steinem) made bitter, dishonest, and above all FALSE accusations and denunciations against Barack Obama before and after the New Hampshire and South Carolina Primaries, it confirmed these younger womens' suspicions beyond a shadow of a doubt.
They didn't leave feminism; 2nd wave feminism' drove them off.
You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in or