Hillary's problems aren't all coming from men, not by a long shot.
I picked "gal" for this headline to be symmetrical with my last HuffPo column, "Guys, Get Over It," where I took on men whose visceral opposition to Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy has little to do with her qualifications and lots to do with their terror of losing most-favored-gender status.
I didn't say "girl", though among women the term is becoming one of endearment, or "ladies" because it's so retro, or "women" because it's too serious to parallel with the vernacular "guys" which I didn't think twice about using for, well, the guys.
Just as women in the Western world have a choice between wearing skirts or pants, but only a man who's truly fringy would show his hairy calves in a skirt, the fluid language choices for the female gender mirror women's fluid social roles as we approach a presidential election with a woman in the lead.
Fluid leadership roles, where women compete in what has previously been a man's world, cause ambiguity and confusing, even contradictory, reactions to Hillary from a substantial group of women too, just as suffragists a century ago drew opposition from women who feared women voting would upset the God-ordained order.
Four Fears as the Race Began
In a Women's e-News commentary, I described four reasons why women most like Hillary--middle aged, progressive, college educated professionals--have been most resistant to lining up with her. I suggested these fears are, as they are with the men, more about themselves than about Hillary:
'Not Ready for One of Us': Donna Brazile, Al Gore's presidential campaign manager and now a political consultant, observes that despite much progress, oppressed groups still tend to assume the rest of society "isn't ready for one of us." That's why more whites than blacks say America is ready for a black president and more men than women say America is ready for a woman president.
'I Love Hillary BUT': But she carries Bill's baggage. But she's polarizing...Many say she's a great senator, forgetting how she overcame the same "buts" in 2000, yet are dead set against her run for president. These women worry that if Clinton loses, they lose--that it will set back their accomplishments for women; they are clearly wary of that risk.'Media Fears': The national media tends to trash any leading candidate. Still, women are singled out for criticism if they appear too "feminine" on one hand or too tough on the other.
'Fear of Identification with Imperfection': [Arianna] Huffington criticizes Hillary for doing what every politician who ever got elected does; crafting positions that attract a broad spectrum of voters. Huffington characterizes this as being inauthentic and she has a point. It's similar to how Rudy Giuliani, the Republican front runner, is trying to assure the Republican Right he really hates abortion and didn't mean it when he appeared in drag.Paradoxically, though, Huffington reserves her fiercest vitriol for the candidate of her own gender and her own party. Perhaps the author of Fearless fears being defined by a female leader she doesn't like more than throwing the election to men with whom she agrees even less.
Progress Made as the Race Continues
By being credibly in the race, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson are together dispensing with the "not ready for one of us" excuse in one fell swoop. Thank goodness.
There's great progress in generational reactions to Hillary. Young women have from the start been highly positive toward her candidacy and attribute almost rock star status to her. And as many who watched her win over wary Upstate New Yorkers in her Senate campaigns predicted, with time and hard work she's brought her favorability up with older women too. She's appealing to women through "Ambassadors" who host meetings and speak as surrogates on her behalf around the country. Activist Susie Stern leads a new National Council of Civic Leaders that reaches out to prominent women leaders "who share a passion to change the direction of our country" and "seeks to use the power of the word of a trusted friend to communicate why Hillary Clinton should be the next President of the United States".
Now, Maureen Dowd can't help herself. She's got a column to fill every week, and snark is her specialty. Plus, if you remember how she filleted Al Gore when he was in the lead, and only after he "won" did she harpoon Bush, it seems she keeps a target where each week the face of the putative winner is put into the bulls-eye space. With Hillary, Dowd especially loves to use misogynist venom--most recently "dominatrix," who "flick(s) the whip"--in the same paragraph that she let slide Barack's typical male way of diminishing women with his adorable wink that would have made warmer blooded women "melt" but not the "unapproachable" Hillary. Go figure that these things come from someone who would never have column space on the New York Times op ed page were it not for women a decade older who broke through that glass ceiling for her.
As to imperfections, a Democratic party leader (a woman who asked not to be named) told me, "How many far less than perfect male candidates have I worked for over the years? The first female president will probably not be perfect in every way either."
Get on with It
Not that imperfections shouldn't called out and subject to public scrutiny, or that every woman should vote for any woman just because she's a woman, as writer Courtney Martin points out in "Does Being a Feminist Mean Voting for Hillary?" Nevertheless, when the U.S. ranks 68th in women holding national office while so many other countries are breaking that gender barrier, it is high time to get on with breaking our own.
Perhaps the first woman president won't turn out to be Hillary. But gals, let's get a grip and get on with creating the tipping point for women seeking high public office.
Activist Sherrye Henry wrote a book in 1994 called The Deep Divide.That's how she described the discrepancy she found between the equality women said they wanted and how they voted. Does this divide still exist? Are women our own worst enemy, as those who would like us to be claim?
It's time to ask those hard questions. Why do many women shy away from acting in their best interest by erring on the side of voting for one of their own when given the chance and a qualified candidate? Other groups do this all the time without being negatively judged. Is it that we've simply always been the caregivers rather than the leaders? That we still take the boniest pieces of the chicken, serve others first, and put ourselves last? That we don't yet see ourselves as worthy of the highest office in the land?
Hillary Clinton's candidacy as the first viable woman candidate for President makes her not just the possible tipping point, but also the inevitable fulcrum. Win or lose, the fact that she's running a viable candidacy is a huge leap forward toward normalizing women's leadership opportunities. And there's hardly a doubt that if she wins, women will be catapulted more quickly to that elusive equal playing field.
Follow Gloria Feldt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Heartfeldt
qualified for the presidency as any of the
other candidates (of either party).
That people object to her voting record
(as not liberal enough, or not anti-war
enough) are probably missing an important
point, that it's the President who's chiefly
responsible for national security, and that
generally requires a 'hard line' view.
Perhaps she could be criticized for taking
(hard-line) positions *because* she was angling
for the presidency. Unfairly, I think. That's
what all *ambitious* politicians do.
The peculiar problem she does have is that
(some, many) men & women will not vote for
her *because* she is a woman. Unfortunately,
I think. The 'other gender' doesn't get such
treatment, and so she loses critical votes.
It's been said that since 55%-60% of registered
voters are women, she could win easily. I've
been advised that 'women don't vote as a bloc'.
So be it. In effect she is not running as a woman,
and if she loses, hopefully it will not be because
she is a woman.
First and foremost reason. Her war vote.
I support the candidate that has my personal best interests in mind. Currently, I have had health care for approximately 2 months out of the past 4 years, I've been without employment for an average of 3-4 months a year for the past 7 years (purely as a result of a lack of jobs in the technical arena), and I've barely been able to pay my taxes...then watched that money funneled into a war that I wanted ended long, long ago. Hillary didn't get with that picture until she got booed on stage. Hillary has had to play to the base harder than all the other candidates, because the record shows, she's a failure on all the matters I deem the most important.
I want a change. Even when we need a substantial change in our approach to foreign policy, Hillary Clinton doggedly defends the traditional approach that has led our country into this mess. When we need a substantial change in economic policy, she offers no real solutions except to roll back the damage Bush did (and these problems go back to the day Reagan took office...NOT just Bush!) When she offers up a health care system, I ask myself...what happened to her trying harder after her first attempt failed? It vanished until Michael Moore made a movie about it. That's how much she REALLY cares about our health.
Males have always pitted women against each other playing on envy and jealousy. It seems to work here with Hillary Clinton, but any woman who was the first to succeed at running for President would have to endure the same overcoming of hate, vile, small mindedness, bigotry, jealousy, and hatred. It seems to hurt more coming from another woman who feels her economic position is threatened by the independence and success of another woman because the rules will change and a woman will be judged by her inherent worth and character rather than the worth of the wealth she will inherit from a male.
Hillary Clinton has what most women don't have who would try to run for the Presidency - she has a former President as her husband, making it easier for her to succeed. Another woman would not have that, so she does seem to be the right person to carve the path for other women.
"And there's hardly a doubt that if she wins, women will be catapulted more quickly to that elusive equal playing field. "
..Seriously?
How exactly did you leap to that conclusion? It seems far more likely to do the opposite. Generally when there is a movement against a society's norms, that society will proceed to react, often violently, to that attempt to change the norms.
See: Cultural revolution in the 80s in response to the 60s
See: 1950s in response to the freedom of women in the 30s-40s
See: The Reformation.
You'd be far more credible if you actually asserted that were Hillary to win the White House, it could halt the decay of the gender gap for a generation, but in the long run, help move the 'center' of normality such that the gender gap will be smaller.
Hillary has my vote all the way.
...she doesn't come close to being the most qualified candidate, not by a country mile.
Please!
Oh, and NABNYC: You are my new hero!