Even More Confused about Women and Hillary

"Why is it that the more Hillary loses, the better I like her?" This was the opening line of Susan Cheever's radio commentary last week on NPR. You'd have thought, or at least hoped, that after seventeen months of Senator Clinton running for the White House, the disconnect between men and the women who support Clinton would have gotten smaller. No such luck. Listening to Cheever, I decided that as the campaign has come down to these very last few primaries, and Clinton's shot at winning has traveled to the dark side of remote, the disconnect has grown even larger.

Cheever says that she'd always felt an affinity for Clinton because "she was never the pretty, simpering, long-legged blonde we were all supposed to be; she had to find another way to be a woman. Me too." I've heard that premise before and been a bit confused by it every time. If Hillary had the same smarts, resume and health care plan, but looked and talked like Gwyneth Paltrow, would Cheever be supporting Barack Obama?

How could I know? How could I appreciate sexism and the objectification that propels it? Hang on, I'll get to that.

What about the war vote? Some women Senators actually believed in the war, just as some male Senators did, neither group compensating for anything -- they got to being depraved the honest way. But Senator Clinton? She has preferred to go with the defense of criminal naivety, but I've never bought it. For that reason I believe that we are more likely to be obliterating Iran if Clinton is president than if Obama is, which was recently confirmed by... Clinton.

But, if it wasn't for sexist stereotypes, Clinton wouldn't have had to vote for the war in an effort to "look strong." But, she didn't have to. She could have voted "no" and then taken to the floor of the Senate and given a heart-felt speech, delving into the all the manifestations and ramifications of sexism, just as Obama did with racism. It could have ended with the words, "I say this because I want Susan Cheever to be even more proud of me than if the only blow I struck for feminism was never giving up on superdelegates."

But again, what do I know of sexism? Okay -- before we get to the most recent incarnation of the woman/man disconnect -- I'll say this:

If you are looking for a guy who has made an effort to put himself in a woman's shoes, look no further than me. And, I can say that in a literal sense. Recently, I walked in "the International Men's March to Stop Rape, Sexual Assault & Gender Violence," subtitled "Walk a Mile In Her Shoes." As a participant I marched with other men for a mile, all of us wearing high heeled shoes.

Hold the applause.

After participating, I never told any woman I know. It would have been a no-win situation. Because there might have been women who congratulated me for being liberated and evolved. They might have thanked me for my solidarity. Maybe, I would even have had the opportunity to show off all the concepts and quotes I've picked up reading Virginia Woolf, Germaine Greer, Andrea Dworkin and John Stoltenberg.

But if their appreciation of me was based on an assumption that I was a man who did not objectify women, I would have felt compelled to admit that I objectify women like Hugh Hefner on spring break. No one wants to hear that. Even Cheever doesn't want to contemplate the full feralness of men. Women "get respect for having good legs" she says. Respect is much too lofty a sentiment.

Not that we men are completely unfamiliar with being judged for our beauty. Cheever herself tips that when she says, "when I tell a handsome man at a party that I support Hillary..." he says, "'that figures, you're an older woman'" Handsome? Why not "a man?" She's probably right -- just after my 29th birthday I experienced a brief period of handsomeness and I distinctly recall being incapable of empathy.

Nonetheless, it would be ludicrous to deny Cheever's implied point that --
unlike women -- an average looking guy, even a less than average looking guy, even a ferret-faced troll with a hunchback, can derive sexual power from having... well, power.

And, of course, we know it.

Take Hillary's husband, Bill. There he was, average looking, immersing himself in the arcanary of the federal tax code. Never would have happened if he thought he could be McDreamy in Hollywood, dating a different starlet every night.

And, I'm not picking on Bill because he got caught with an intern. I'm picking on Bill because he cemented his claim on the White House by signing the death warrant for the execution of Ricky Ray Rector. Rector was the effectively mentally retarded fellow back in Arkansas who was so incapable of understanding his imminent execution that he left the pecan pie from his "last meal" on the side of the tray, telling the guards he was saving it "for later." You don't do what Clinton did because you are thinking, "yes, but once in office, think of all the good I can do." You do that because you are thinking, "I'm gonna' get me mine."

And that brings us back to Hillary and her version of throwing the switch on Rector -- voting for the war -- and Cheever loving her the more she loses.

Shouldn't a leader have to earn your love by doing more than being just like you? Shouldn't that leader be proceeding as if -- to paraphrase Henry Hassett Browne & John Donne -- all men and women are born brothers and sisters and anything that diminishes either of them, hurts me? I'd claim that. That is why I marched.

But Clinton diminishes us all. How can Cheever, or anyone else, say that Clinton is expanding the boundaries of what is possible for women when she keeps defining her legitimacy by claiming that other women will never expand theirs? Older white women will not, no never, vote for Barack? With that sort of limitation on the possible, one could be forgiven thinking that handsome men will not, no never, get beyond saying, "that figures" when speaking about her.

Comments

[S1m0n]

I think you're giving her too much credit. Hillary voted for the war because she wanted the war, period.

All the other conclusions defy Occam's razor: there is no evidence anywhere that Hillary was ever anything but keen on the war; which. presumably, is why she has never renounced her vote.

Even today, the foreign policy advisors she has surrounded herself with remains the hawkiest of hawks.

It wasn't political opportunism which made her vote yes, it was (for want of a better term) evil. Hillary was down with the conquest. THAT's ultimately why the world dodged a bullet when Barack Obama caught fire.

[altohone]

I think it's sexist to suggest Hillary voted for the war to look tough. :)
Hillary may just be an ideological neocon just like Cheney and Bush.

Madelaine Allbright was an original signatory of the neocon PNAC document after all... and she's Hillary's main foreign policy advisor.

Obviously, neither reason is one she can share with women or with Democrats, so we'll never know.

Any defending her for believing the assurances from the group who lied about her for years shouldn't be floating that balloon either, because it makes her look even worse.


I'm not sure I can write this without offending, some suggest we should be looking at Big Pharma and the effects of popular drugs on logic and memory for PART of the answer. Seeing the effect a certain sleeping aid that starts with an "A" on my mom, and hearing reports of people driving and raiding the fridge without remembering, I find the idea intriguing.
This PRESUPOSES pharmaceutical use and a possible gender difference in side-effects. That's the offensive part, even though statistics bear it out. And, anecdotally, my mom doesn't like Hillary, so...

It's more likely that women who are neocons have been working hard to convince others, or that many women rely on the useless corporate media and are too busy to fact-check Hillary's record in relation to her campaign rhetoric which distances itself from DLC policies she has supported.

[BlueAsh]

Excellent article!

"Clinton diminishes us all. How can Cheever, or anyone else, say that Clinton is expanding the boundaries of what is possible for women when she keeps defining her legitimacy by claiming that other women will never expand theirs?"

Good point and good question! I could not believe it when I saw the NY Times article "If Hillalry can't win, then who?" --As if Hillary was the only woman in the US capable of getting herself into a political office.

The more I see Hillary out in the public speaking as if reality didn't matter, the more I am ashamed of her. I don't see her as a champion for women; instead, I see her fiercely defending her turf at the expense of women. In Cincinnati, Ohio, a conservative city in a conservative state, 6th graders mock Hillary in their school--and girls laugh right along with the boys! Some example Hillary has set!

Before anyone jumps in and puts "the patriarchal society" on trial, let me just say that I never see any indication that these kids laugh at Hillary because she is a woman. They say that she lies and therefore "she is stupid."

Thanks, Hillary! Not!

[bonnieschultz]

I am a 29 year old woman, and although I respect Senator Clinton's hard work, I support Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States.

[wwsword]

I'm a 46 year old man and I support Senator Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. However, I don't respect Barack Obama.

[Roshi98]

Strange how Solomon uses the example of a man's perspective (Cheever) to make his case that Hillary has done little to advance the cause of women seeking powerful positions in modern American society. Laughable, in fact.

Never mind her impassioned speech on the floor of the Senate describing in painful detail the assurances made to her by the Bush Administration (at that time, with around an 85% approval rating), that ALL avenues would be pursued before the military option was exercised. Never mind that Hillary led the charge to ensure health care services were extended to National Guard troops. Never mind that she was the FIRST senator to ask of the Pentagon if an exit strategy had been devised. To Solomon, all of this is overshadowed by one vote, decided in the affirmative by 76 other Senators, looked upon favorably by over 80% of the American people, and 85% of New York State's citizens.

Solomon decides to castigate and belittle the truly positive impact Hillary's viable and hard-fought campaign because his myopic vision has blinded him to both the historical context that framed that one decision and the reality of her record. As a man who claims to have read the works of both Dworkin and Stoltenberg, I would have thought that beyond the mere objectification of women he would understand that holding women to an unequal standard to their male counterparts is equally damaging.

[peorgietirebiter]

Regardless of how anyone feels about Sen. Clinton, she cannot be excused from her war vote and her later justifications only compound its wrongness. She's probably smarter than Russ Fiengold and certainly more experienced in the politics of war so to blame Bush is too facile by ten. She's not more or any less culpable than all the other Democrats that voted for the resolution and they all have to own their votes.

[JoeSun]

Hillary really hasn't done that much. She was a first lady with a law degree and was a US Senator. The United States currently has 16 Senators who are women and a number of women governors as well. What has Clinton done that is so significant for women's rights other than squander an opportunity?

[JoeSun]

What is all this BS about an unequal standard? Hillary was fooled by Bush into voting for the war while Obama spoke out against it. "

Uh huh, but Obama wasn't even in the Senate, so---"

Give it a rest. At least Obama spoke out against it. Hillary couldn't even find the courage to do that.

If you think the war is important, it is fair to hold her accountable. Giving her a pass for her double-barreled idiocy--voting for Kyl Lieberman and the AUMF--would be the real travesty.

[sky2blue]

Cheever. Susan Cheever. He was using a woman's perspective.

(snarky comment here)

[DennyCrane]

One thing I find confusing about a lot of the women who are supporting Hillary is that they claim to be feminists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't feminism about equal treatment? If that's so, then shouldn't a female candidate be held to the same standard as a male candidate? I see so many women who say the reason they're voting for Hillary is because they want to see a woman in The White House. Does that mean they wouldn't vote for Hillary if she were a man? Is she getting bonus points for her gender? If two candidates were identical in every way except gender, would these women automatically vote for the woman? I hate identity politics. I have never, ever seen a candidate that I strongly identified with, that I thought was like me. But that didn't stop me from figuring out who was the best choice or getting excited about their being elected. That's the real legacy of this campaign. People for or against someone for all the wrong reasons. Real feminists shouldn't be factoring in gender at all, but now we see the hypocrisy. It's wrong to deny someone a job because of their gender, but apparently, it's OK to vote for them based on it.

[B1uBall00n]

Maybe it's because I'm a young woman. I don't see Hillary Clinton as a savior for sisterhood and women's issues. What annoys me the most is the way she got to where she is. Hillary Clinton wouldn't be in the position she is in, if it wasn't for Bill. And to say it is a sign of strength that she stayed with him when he cheated on her, is a joke. It isn't strength, it's weakness and just proves that she didn't feel she could get anywhere without him. I would have had more respect for her if she told him where to go and how to get there. That would have been a proud moment for women. Instead she swallowed her pride and self respect and continue their charade of a marriage. Everyone gave him high fives and hells yeahs, while she got labeled the woman who couldn't keep her man satisfied. saying no to the war wasn't weak, but swallowing your pride while your husband rubs your face in mud sure is. I don't want my daughters growing up and thinking that that is the way you succeed in life. I don't want them to be anything like her. I want my children to grow up and look at a president who has pride in themselves and stands up for what they believe in. So I'll be very happy when I can tell my kids all about President Obama (who was raised by a REAL feminist).

[DennyCrane]

Mothers should be able to say to their daughters, "Look, someday you can grow up and be President." What kind of impression would young girls get if the first woman to be President got there because she was married to one. I want to see a female president. But I'd rather it be someone who got their on their own. There are plenty of women Senators and Governors who would make better Presidents than Hillary and be good role models for young girls.

[anon004]

"I would have felt compelled to admit that I objectify women like Hugh Hefner on spring break." Mr. Solomon, provided you are not disrespecting women as a result, don't beat yourself up about this. As a middle-aged woman, I've come to accept that men can't help this; it's wired into their brains because they are constantly being drowned in testosterone. (I hope you won't feel like I'm stereotyping men when I write this, but I don't think denying biology is very helpful, even if we wish it weren't that way.)

Personally, I don't feel closer to Hillary the more she loses. For that to happen, I'd have to believe that she lost largely because of sexism. While I'm not denying that some people may have decided to to vote for someone else because she is female (although, I think that prospect is pretty slim, too, given that the alternate choice was a black man who probably wasn't going to get much support from the knuckle-draggers, either), sexism was not the primary reason for her loss. She ran a terrible campaign, which, sadly, might have actually worked if someone hadn't come along and run a much better one. That's called winning on the merits, and it's what feminism used to be about. So, the fact that Susan Cheever feels closer to Hillary the more she loses says more about Susan Cheever's well-developed sense of victimhood (I suspect) than it does about women in general (I hope).

[jhamm1]

" You'd have thought, or at least hoped, that after seventeen months of Senator Clinton running for the White House, the disconnect between men and the women who support Clinton would have gotten smaller. No such luck. "

One swallow does not make a summer, and thus Cheever's commentary could just as well present a rarity among female observors.

"But, if it wasn't for sexist stereotypes, Clinton wouldn't have had to vote for the war in an effort to "look strong.""

Assuming that's the case, then all the more reason not to vote for her, for the last thing we need is somebody who continues to deflate our national credibility by further excacerbating the divide between our not-so-certain so-called "enemies" and threatens to exert military force at the drop of a hat strictly for the sake of eluding the feminine stereotype of favoring reconcilliation and reserving the use of brute force strictly as a last resort.

[JoeSun]

"But, if it wasn't for sexist stereotypes, Clinton wouldn't have had to vote for the war in an effort to "look strong"

Ah, so once again, another reason why Hillary does not have to take responsibility for her actions.

Good grief! I am so thankful that Obama spared me the torture of voting for her.

[CitizenE]

The question at hand is this. Has Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama been given a fair shake to win the candidacy for President in the Democratic party. By and large, the answer has to be yes, despite the inevitable misogyny and racism their campaigns have attracted. What's more, given the state of the nation it seems either will get a fair shake in the general election, given again the small mindedness of a large enough number of individuals in the American electorate. Believe me, if they were atheist or gay, neither would be where each is today.