Hillary and the Unfeminine Mystique
I would have loved to vote for America's first woman president. But it wasn't meant to be.
Hillary Clinton, the woman who could have made history, simply let me down.
She let me down five years ago when she voted for the war in Iraq. And she let me down all these years since, by never repudiating her vote or apologizing for her mistake.
She let me down -- and lost my respect -- by continually using the pronoun "I". "I'll be ready the first day in office." "I'll be the one to answer the phone at 3 a.m." Like some egomaniac, she seemed to forget that there are 300 million other people in this country.
Barack Obama didn't forget this. His most-used pronoun is "we". While Clinton billed herself as a one-woman act, Obama focused on the ensemble, on plurality, unity and cooperation, That's not showmanship -- that's statesmanship.
And Clinton's favorite verb? "Fight." Thanks, babe -- that's what they're doing over in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, and in Lebanon, and in too many places around the globe. I don't want a fighter in the White House; I want a peacemaker.
As an active feminist all my life, I see exactly where Clinton went wrong. She was using the old paradigm: To beat them (the men) you've got to be like them. Tough, aggressive, pragmatic. But what a difference it would have made if her campaign had employed some "feminine" qualities: compassion, conciliation, generosity.
She must have taken Margaret Thatcher as her role model. She should have copied Golda Meir instead, who was known to greet foreign dignitaries in her housedress, and brew them a cup of tea in her kitchen.
I do, of course, sympathize with Hillary's marital predicament. As many wives discover, a husband can be both a help and a hindrance, an embellishment or an embarrassment. I think she would have been a lot wiser to leave hubby home, tending the lawn in Chappaqua.
Most likely, Hillary herself will not be willing to return home next year and take up domestic chores. Nor should she. She will make a fine elder stateswoman. Chastened by this campaign, she may yet become a mellow voice of reason, of tolerance, of understanding, of moral rectitude and responsibility.
She is finished running with the wolves. Now it's time to lick her wounds and be a woman again.
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
Having been a feminist my whole life, I can say with great conviction that lying, pandering to racists, pandering to homophobes, and being incompetant are not "male" traits, and that is what lost this election for Sen. Clinton.
Her supporters will be yelling sexism for the next four years, and I am already tired of it. She lost because she was too dumb to know she was getting horrible advice, and too "Washington" to look beyond her nose for what was going on in the outside world.
Really, this loss is astounding. She had it all, and she blew it. That's all there is to it.
Hey there robynuva. You won't hear us yelling sexism, but I'll bet you'll hear Obama supporters yelling racism when he loses in the fall. What an astounding loss that will be. He had it all, but didn't even try to appeal to Hillary supporters and he blew it. That's all there is to it.
Sen. Obama has never played the race card. Can you say the same about Sen. Clinton?
How would he have appealed to Clinton voters? What could he have said?
I hope and pray that this man of integrity will win, and will be able to bring about a politics of inclusion, bringing together Red and Blue states, black and white, men and women, gay and straight, but should he lose, he will lose with integrity. Can Sen. Clinton even begin to claim that?
Now, let me see. I'm being attacked. Constantly. Kneecapped. Blows to the back of the head. Etc., etc. And I'm expected to turn to the army of my attacker and say, "Please like me."
Reconciliation can only begin, unfortunately, when the primary is over.
What ever, instead of indulging in really juvenile tantrums, if you allow McCain to become the next POTUS better get ready for a Supreme Court packed with Alito clones. This new Supreme Court will have judges who are very "unfriendly" with ideas that are held dear by true feminists and others who want personal freedoms.
Anyone who doesn't work their socks off for the future Demo nominee (Obama) and sits out the election or votes for McCain is casting their vote for the reversals of what we as women now take for granted. Work is a great cure for frustration and alot more practical than tantrums.
Obama '08
Bingo !!!!! Exactly and one of the many reasons I cannot and WILL NOT vote obama..
And a democrat all my life... will vote McCain without a second thought !!!!
I would have to disagree about the "pragmatist" part. I think Senator Obama is way more pragmatic than Senator Clinton. The Clinton campaign focused on numbers, the wrong poll numbers, actually, in a belief that all there ever could be in voter space was all there had been there in the past. In comparison, the Obama campaign pragmatically noted that if they could not have the majority of existing voters, they would have to "make" new ones! Not only is this the correct scientific answer to an unsolvable problem (expand it until it becomes solvable), it is also the most human one. The campaign saw that voters were more than numbers. They were people. And there were more people than there were voters in the past. Many, many more, actually. So by acting scientifically, pragmatically AND humanly, the Obama campaign forged a community.
And therefor the distinction between male and female in this campaign is non-essential. The distinction between good and better, however, is.
I think the moral of this story is that, if a woman truly desires to be President, then she should never marry a President.
The moral for now is quite the opposite: without a head start given by her husband, a woman can't make it to the political top tier. Hillary president of the USA would have been like Benazir Bhutto prime minister of Pakistan, Mrs Bandaranaike PM of Sri Lanka, etc. When you need a male family member's coattails to go far in politics, your country is not emancipated. Why wasn't the female presidential candidate called Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius or Barbara Boxer? Because they didn't have a head start provided by a husband.
Great article by the way. I live in France where, during the last presidential elections, the socialist candidate was a woman. She ran her campaign quite differently from Hillary, stressing her feminine side and contrasting it with Sarkozy's style. Almost made it, too. (Unfortunately she proved to be a terrible debater, and she didn't get her own party quite on board either - partly for misogynic reasons.)
It's sexism and you should be able to realize that. How many women start off by saying they wanted to vote for her, but could not because of (insert list of minor complaints). This primary season has really opened my eyes to it. It's so engrained in us that women are against their own sex. Really, you should do some research on it. Then do some logical thinking. That is if you haven't downed any Kool-Aid yet.
Female longevity has already decreased in a mere decade and a half...AND no one has even attempted to discover why let alone resolve this issue. History and current events show us that when women in the culture start to be viewed as dispensible, their gender quickly loses rights, privileges, and liberties.
I have five adult daughter, seven granddaughters - and I prefer Barack's style of politics. I'm not slamming her political gains. I simply prefer another candidate.
All of Hillary's political gains have come with her flapping in the wind while clutching at the cuffs of Bill's trousers as he flew through his political life. If she had been Herbert Rodham or Horace Rodham or Hector Rodham or Henry or Hal or Horatio or any man, her present way of being would possibly have gotten her into the driver's seat. She's a fat ass, sneering, caustic, jealous, outright scary tomboy in a pastel pants suit, looking every bit as ridiculous as she sounds and acts. And, once again, FLOWBAMA is not my dream candidate. Frank Zappa died, but he sure would have been kicking some ass today, had he lived.
"minor complaints?"
well that sure is a matter of perspective. I don't consider supporting the neocon agenda of american imperialism to be minor. I don't consider selling out the people to big business to be minor. I don't consider using rovian tactics to win an election to be minor. the list goes on... these are serious things.
Some of them are not even true and some of them your candidate is guilty of too.
Exactly! I know just what you mean!
It shocked me when I saw Obama doing that with the race baiting and the passive aggressive attacks he kept making.
Unbelievable.
I loved him and was actively compaigning for him until then.
I felt so betrayed. I had believed.
They say when one door closes another one opens. And so something good came out of it. Rather than just repeating the conventional "wisdom" that the media and the Hillary Haters keep repeating following neocon propaganda I started researching both candidates in depth while staying neutral for awhile.
WOW!
I find out some interesting stuff. Of course there are the nuts out there who makes all kinds of crazy claims but there are very reputable sites that have factual information with notes, links and attributions. Holy Moly.
I really grew to question Obama and admire Clinton.
It's amazing what researching the candidates does. LOL
I went from disliking Clinton and not trusting her and being completely enamored of Obama, to disliking and mistrusting Obama and respecting and actually liking Clinton and confidence in her ability .
YIPES. What a shock.
Oh well, I'm sure Obama will be a good President. Hopefully he will choose great advisors staff and cabinet which considering the campaign staff and management he put together shouldn't be a problem. Plus he has adopted many of Clinton's policies as they were released with a few tweaks so I think it should be all right.
You really think her being hawkish on war is a "minor" complaint? That's why she lost. It was not "minor" to way too many of us.
She wasn't being hawkish. It was one vote and a lot of people voted that way and Obama said he probably would have voted that way. Of course he said that before he was running for president. It was on his web-site and he took it down when President Clinton commented on it.
C'mon. I teach the stuff!!
Of course sexism exists. I don't see anyone denying that.
But as this writer noted in her essay, many feminists desire to transcend the old paradigm of power politics (read the books/research of Anne Wilson Schaef, Rianne Eisler, Barbara Hubbard, Jean Houston, etc. Rianne Eisler's work on the "partnership way" is excellent - to find out more: http://www
I don't want to win Hillary's way (the dominator way). I want to win Barack's way (the partnership way).
If we fail to embrace the new paradigm this time around, sure I'll participate in the old paradigm of politics - for four more years. But I will keep working for that moment of social evolution - when we shall overcome - we shall overcome the tendencies of our own reptilitian brains.
Sexism. Isn't that a fun word????Let's use it in a sentence..
I get so tired of people throwing that word around and using it as a handy excuse. Real sexism unfortunately is alive and well in our country, but it is necessary to really reflect on what it means to accurately see it's ramifications. It does not mean that anyone who does not agree with a woman is a sexist. You are right when you say "Really, you should do some research on it. Then do some logical thinking."
I would add that you do some self-reflecting too.
Obama '08
"It does not mean that anyone who does not agree with a woman is a sexist..."
Nor does it mean because you DO agree with a woman that you are NOT a sexist.
One does follow the other of course.
Hillary's really advanced the cause of feminism. She's a real role model. NOT!
Why don't you feminists get on Nancy Pelosi's case too.
As the first woman Speaker of the House she's setting a real great example of how to be a completely ineffective woman steamrolled by white, male republiCONS.
I've been on her case many times. Her "impeachment is off the table" line hurt the potential for changing politics in DC. Without that as even a viable threat, Dems could do nothing. How many of us have howled about it.
I'm VERY impressed with Nancy Pelosi. It's a tough job. She comes from a "political family" and has mastered the art. I'm thrilled that she is the first female to become "Speaker of the House.' And I would love see a female president some day. When that happens, I would like it to be a female I could be proud of.
I would love to see a woman President someday. But it has to be the right person. Someone who would make a good leader and display the "feminine" qualities you mention. But Hillary chose to act like a man. She voted for a war so she'd look tough. She bloodies up her enemies cause she thinks that's the only way to win. And she can't admit her mistakes. These are the qualities we've come to expect from male leaders. What's ironic is that we have a candidate who's displaying these "feminine" qualities, but the candidate is a man. Hillary, on the other hand, has done an enormous disservice to the cause of feminism. Through her campaign, she's epitomized the very stereotype her election was supposed to shatter. She's shown that she's petty, moody, and flighty, all the qualities that people list when they say women aren't fit to lead.
Funny thats exactly how i feel ... but the twist is this ... I would like to see a black man/woman in the White House one day ..... but Obama is NOT the change and Black we need in the White House in 2008. !!!
I too had been a Hillary Clinton supporter As a black person I didn't know that much about Obama and wouldn't support him just because he was black. Then I listened to him and liked what he had to say. I researched his background and qualifications and found that he was a viable candidate. First there were the negative veiled comments from Bill Clinton, Then I noticed the way Hillary and her campaign started slinging mud and the "kitchen sink" strategy. She seamed to feel that the White house was owed her for some reason. Then in the debates she seemed to team up with the moderators against Obama. Her tactics have been underhanded and dirty, and for all purposes she and her campaign seemed out to tear the Democratic party apart. Class has no gender.
The reality of Hillary underestimating the challenge by Obama was not the only mistake made by Hillary or her campaign people. The reliance upon the 'Clinton favors' may also have led to the current results, when considering how to secure the superdelegates. There are numerous other obvious factors for her inability to win this campaign. She did not impress me a the woman candidate. As a man I was taken back by FOX comments related to the speech given by Sally Fields when she won an award. "If a woman ran the country there would not be any GD wars". FOX of course replied "oh are we supposed to get our military advice from the flying nun". Therein lay some differences of what women would feel about the direction of America, and what would be some of the male responses. Why Hillary felt she continually needed responses filled with testosterone, was beyond what I expected from her. She had ample opportunity to listen to the Obama message, and build a successful feminists plan to provide direction to America, but she did not. That is my simplistic view of why I support Obama over Hillary. Obviously she could have taken the same tactics and applied them towards McCain, but she, again, chose not to. I expect that the next time a qualified woman runs in the nomination process, we will see a difference if the feminine direction is provided. I expect many will vote for that woman, including many men.
Hillary is more like Bush than McCain is, she wants to blow up Iran, she will fight, she will not quit, etc.
Dems think that Bush is a cowboy and stubborn but can't seem to see that one of their own is just like him. They hate that in Bush but love it in Clinton, something is wrong with this picture.
The problem wasn't that she behaved more like a man, she behaved like a caricature of what she thought men are like. She conveniently left out morals, honesty, and character.
"she behaved like a caricature of what she thought men are like."
...and it was such a bad act. I would insert another adjective.
Probably cause she modelled herself after hubby -- except I don't remember him being so hawkish.
He wasn't. Even when Clinton was prez it was well-known that his wife was more hawkish than he was.
"Now it's time to lick her wounds and be a woman again. " Could you imagine if say, Chris Matthews had said that on the air? He'd probably be cleaning out his office the next day.
Only a woman could be so cruel.
Aren't you just saying that she didn't MANIPULATE people correctly?
Maybe that's why people didn't like her, because they saw that her actions were calculated. Maybe the bottom line is that people are tired of being manipulated, and they want someone who is honest with them.
Don't count on her being chastened by a loss. I'd be surprised if she got behind Obama in any substantive way if he is the nominee, but rather with vindictiveness, subtly managing to undermine him and further damaging their party. The sting of the Scorpion.
I can't believe the re-emergence of sexism that this year's presidential campaign has brought forth.
Historians are going to have a field day with Huffpo archives.
Care to substantiate your claim with the "sexist" quote in Joans post?
If you're referring to comments, HuffPo can't be held responsible if they follow the rules. Arianna is funny about the 1st Amendment that way (and to be commended).
Remember, there are plenty of GOP'ers who comment here under false pretenses with the purpose of seeking to divide. They both praise Hillary and attack her unjustly to get a response.
Hillary Clinton took her playbook straight from my mother's generation. (In fact, she reminds me very much of my mother - at least, when she's at her angry worst.) Anger at men, probably nurtured by that "domineering father" she never talks about topped off by the standard ultra-feminist indoctrination of her time at Wellsley, produced a genuine modern-day Amazon - a self-mutilating, male wannabe with anger (not strength) as her core value.
That's interesting. I'd never thought about. I've never heard her mention her father.
I had read somewhere that he was quite authoritarian, but I have no idea if that is opinion or fact.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
