The Selfish Gene Is Female

With apologies to Richard Dawkins (author of The Selfish Gene), I have to point out a noticeable selfishness on the part of some Democratic women voters. When Hillary Clinton declared she was "in it to win", many women around the country felt a rush of pride and hope. As Senator Clinton progressed throughout the primary season, she galvanized women all over the country, who came out to work for her and vote for her.

But now that Clinton is not going to be the nominee of the Democratic party, we are hearing a terrible moaning and whining on the part of Clinton's women supporters, even to the point that some are saying they will not vote for Obama in the Fall. As much as many of us would have liked to see a woman President, it has become apparent that to insist on a woman candidate is mainly about "us" not about what the majority of Democratic voters may want or need. It is selfish of us to insist on a Clinton victory, and appalling to hear such women leaders as Geraldine Ferraro implying she might not vote for Obama because she is so disappointed that Hillary cannot win. A McCain victory would be anathema to the causes that Hillary Clinton has always supported like choice, a repudiation of No Child Left Behind, health care for all, and women's rights.

Selfish women like the ones who are grousing about Hillary's loss are precariously close to embarrassing our entire gender. If we can fight for a nomination as good or better than any man (and Hillary has fought as hard as any man would or could), then we ought to be able to lose as good or better than a man. That is, losing without pouting, without recriminations, without blaming -- the media, our opponent, men, etc. I so want women voters and Hillary Clinton to be exemplary losers. There is nothing to be gained now by this complaining and finger pointing. It has been over for months, and insisting on having Clinton fight to the finish is not only somewhat unique in political campaigns (most candidates bow out long before the so-called 'end'), it has been undoubtedly damaging to the fight against McCain in the Fall.

Clinton's argument that she can still win, as she has been proclaiming on the campaign trail for weeks, is completely incomprehensible to anyone who can count and dishonest to those who cannot. In order to overturn the long tradition of counting "delegates" as the measure of who is the Democratic nominee, Clinton would have to do a number of very damaging things -- to herself, her supporters and to the Democratic party. She would have to overturn an agreement she herself made not to campaign or count Michigan and Florida's votes; she would have to overturn the concept of using pledged delegates as the metric for victory and replace it with "popular vote"; she would have to convince 75 to 80% of superdelegates to change their votes or vote for her because of her version of an electoral map metric -- alienating not only the women who support Obama, but all of the other Obama supporters, who are more than half of the Democratic party at this point. Would that victory be worthwhile? Would that victory be a feminist victory? What would we have proved? Only that women are the most selfish of all voters.

Comments

[HowdyDoody]

Myself a feminist from the 70's, I heartily applaud your post. Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates (Ferraro and Gloria Allred, for heaven's sakes) have embarrassed our gender and diminished us by implying that Obama and the media are sexist, blah, blah, blah. Hillary has played the victim card over much of her life, which may explain why Bill is the perfect spouse for her, and it is demeaning for us all that she hasn't found the spine to gracefully bow out of this race if not her marriage. Her histrionic jumping from persona to persona exemplifies and reinforces the caricature of women that many men still hold and use against us. As in, "oh, it must be THAT time of month!"

Men have long complained that women, especially in the workplace, can act very tough but quickly dissolve into the hurt victim when things aren't going their way. That's a lie!! Except for Hillary, who can't or won't quit playing that particular game.

[presto]

Your GENDER is embarrassed? Seriously? It is really important to dis-engage from the bias and you have not done so. Most of what you say is based on rumor, completely distorted information, and mis-directed anger. And genders don't get embarrassed. However, they can get bashed.

[xenofile]

If they can't get embarrassed, I don't think they can get bashed.

[MA4HRC]

I'm embarrassed by chicken heads that allow people to smack them in the face and then be told that they're shaking their hands. If I were around during the 60s, I truely believe that I would be a Black Panther. You don't get to smack me in the face and expect me to walk away peacefully. I can guarantee that you're walking away missing some teeth.

[cheforacle]

Who is smacking you in the faced? Do you believe the winner of a majority of the delegates under the rules established by the party before the first contests is the winner of the Dem party nomination?

[Binxy]

What does this "chickenhead" comment even mean?

[MA4HRC]

How different is it to say that women will not vote for Obama or that African Americans, and I'm black, will not vote for Senator Clinton? Maybe you should go back and read the posts or listen to the media snipets from MSNBC in order to realize why I'm not voting for him. The media is finally starting to talk about the sexism and admit that it exists, but unfortunately it's too late to get my vote. Don't patronize us now by telling us not to take it so personally, because it became that when she was attacked in such a vicious way. It may have been a different story had they stuck to the issues and talked about why one candidate was weaker policy wise, but then they had to get into the area of ironing shirts, cackles, fat asses, being qualified because her husband cheated on her, she-devils and the list goes on. I"m no longer a democrat because of this election, so I don't care what happens to them in November. They will no longer get my money, my volunteer efforts, or very possibly my votes in the future. I'm absolutely done with the democratic party.

[sky2blue]

So, you're not going to vote for Obama because of what the MEDIA did? So . . . the media never attacked Obama or anything like that?

If you don't wanna vote for Obama, hey. Do you. But to make Obama pay for the media's mistake? Wouldn't it make more sense not to watch cable news?

And here's the difference between women who won't vote for Obama and African Americans, and I'm black, too, who won't vote for Clinton: neither Obama nor his campaign surrogates attacked Clinton personally. The one time she was called a monster, a very qualified foreign relations expert was tossed from the campaign. The Obama campaign didn't calculate that dismissing women's vote would give them a larger share of the men's vote.

The most important difference to me is this: Obama is winning fair and square. To give her the nomination would be unfair and wrong. See, I won't vote for Hillary because of her campaign, something in her control. I could be wrong, but it seems you're not voting for Barack, not because of anything he or his campaign did, but because of the media.

[KarateKid]

You weren't a real Democrat if Hillary was the only reason you were voting. If you think the venom was vicious in the primary, you haven't seen anything yet, and please, don't give me that crap about it being all one sided.

So, by all means, the Republican party, with all the bigots, KKK white supremacists and religious fanatics will welcome you with open arms, and you will get what you deserve for not voting on the issues but by gender.

It's a weak argument, but it's a free country. I pity you.

[presto]

How did you so completely misinterpret that post?

[paganmist]

What happens in November happens to everyone. You will not be somehow bypassed by the results of your vote or non-vote, just because you don't like the Democrats.

McCain is openly opposed to and has vowed to get rid of Roe vs. Wade, and he is actively campaigning against insurance coverage for Birth Control (or free birth control for under-priviledged.)

This has never been about one man or one woman. It is about your future as well. It is about the future of the kids who aren't involved in this, about how grown up choices affect the future.

There has been a crap-ton of racism in this primary - I have experienced it myself - but that is all the more reason to vote. I am voting to preserve civil rights (Republicans want to reverse those as well) and I am voting to preserve women's rights (Republicans would LOVE to reverse those.)

So put your money where your mouth is. If you're so interested in the wages of sexism, if you're a feminist of any kind, dont' vote with your personal hurt feelings, vote for whichever side will actively promote a pro-female agenda.

Otherwise, you might as well just admit that sexism/feminism weren't your motivators to begin with.

[MA4HRC]

I'm black and where was the racism?

[kburlz]

Rev Wright got about 24/7 news coverage on every news channel for a week. The media punched Obama around his fair share.

[Susanfrom29]

John McCain has complained of ageism. Hillary Clinton has complained of sexism. And Barack Obama, the only one has suffered from any ism has never complained that there is a lot of racism in this country.

Interesting. And tells me a lot about the person I want to be my next President.

[csepwede]

I am a woman aged 45, so I can say this and not be sexist and take it with a grain of salt if you must.

But now I have a whole lot more empathy for men who complain about women using emotion to "get their way" because I'm seeing that kind of behavior from Hillary supporters right now.

And I speak as a woman who wasn't encouraged to do sports... but I wonder if the lack of access to true competition has made some women of my generation and older not able to understand how to lose gracefully (and how to play by the rules).

People are throwing temper tantrums. The thing to do when your team loses is not to blame the other team, or stomp off the field.

The coach has to sit everyone down in the locker room, and say "ok, where did we screw up?"

[BigBen]

No problem losing as good as any man We have more practice losing than any man. hell we lose every fight we even lose the abortion fight with one woman on the supreme court. No we don' t have to lose like a man. men have to lose like we have always. perhaps Obama losing the nomination would be losing like a woman.

[paganmist]

We're going to lose the abortion fight entirely if McCain chooses conservatives.

So abortion isn't an option. And he doesn't want birth control to be covered by insurance (though Viagra's still available.)

What the hell is going on? Why should I be forced to give up sex because some idiot believes that it should only be for procreation?

[sky2blue]

"perhaps Obama losing the nomination would be losing like a woman."

I followed you up to that point. What does that mean?

[sky2blue]

"But now I have a whole lot more empathy for men who complain about women using emotion to "get their way" because I'm seeing that kind of behavior from Hillary supporters right now."

I'm, er, significantly not as wise as you, but I feel the same way. Take this from a black Baptist who didn't hesitate to take on a deacon, who happened to be her uncle, and pastor when they were expressing misogynistic views. . . . It was a good moment. They jumped up like they were gonna do something! Another deacon tried to hide the fact that he had started laughing. I think I made my mother proud.

[presto]

It is perfectly possible, as you have just shown, for a 45 year-old woman to be sexist.

And how on earth do you figure that women do not have access to true competition? Unless you were born in the 1800's you have had plenty of chances to compete.

[sky2blue]

"but I wonder if the lack of access to true competition has made some women of my generation and older not able to understand how to lose gracefully (and how to play by the rules)."

I think she's refering to the fact that for lots of older women, they weren't allowed to play in organized sports, and certainly weren't encouraged to "compete." Even if they did play and compete when their parents weren't looking.

[boolala]

I talked to my mother recently--a 77 year old staunch feminist who has worked in the trenches all her life for equality and fair play. She very sadly remarked, "Hillary Clinton is confirming all of the negative sterotypes that people used ot have about feminism: She is acting like she is entitled to be president, simply because she is a woman, whether or not she is the best candidate, and then turning around and blaming her own mistakes and incompetence on the sexism of others. This is setting us back."

[erykah]

Linda, thanks for a nice post. Well said. I too am disappointed with the victimology that has become the mantra of the Clinton campaign. As an African American female, I understand the disappointment the Clinton supporters are facing and I do think that we need to allow these woman room to grieve and get it out of their system. Maybe once they have cooled ff, they will review McCain's voting record and come back to their senses.

[shrinqrap]

The author shows both true grit and integrity.

Would a man have ever been allowed to speak the truths you have spoken without being called sexist? We still have a long way to go.

But as a man, Ill be proud to cast a vote for the first woman nominee of our party, but this election year the best nominee for our party turned out to be a man.

[sky2blue]

I disagree with assertion that the selfish gene is female, that women are the most selfish voters. Perhaps these women and these females are being awfully short-sighted and selfish, but don't malign the rest of us.

Other than that, I agree with your assertions.

[sky2blue]

Let me agree with shrinqrap here. I apologize for being as harsh as I was.

[sky2blue]

Woa! Not shrinqrap, but erykah.

Sorry, shrinqrap.

[speshalk]

Thanks Linda!!! ....."Nicely Put"...."Perfectly on Point"

[in4success]

although i find great dignity and honor in your philosophy, unfortunately, i am bound by observation to the following sentiment:

good luck with that.

[RichLiberal]

Typical Obama post full of misinformation. The agreement was not to campaign in MI/FL. The agreement had nothing to do w counting votes. But, as usual, Obama is trying to invent rules while at the same time saying he wants to stick by the rules. Hillary complied with the agreement not to campaign in MI/FL, Obama actually did not but no one is making a fuss. The agreement is over - Hillary didn't campaign, period. Independently of anything Hillary did, Florida held an election and Hillary won. What do you people want? Unilateral disarmament and bow down to the Obama god like cult members?

Why on earth would Geraldine Ferraro vote for Obama after being trashed by his campaign as a racist? Is that part of being in the cult, too? No matter how condescending and contemptuous that Obama and his campaign are of you, you still have to worship Obama.

Finally, can Hillary win? Well she can't win the majority of pledged delegates. But that's not what the rules say is necessary for the nomination, although reading this post you'd never know that. I'm running out of allotted words, but there's lots more wrong w this post than I have already pointed out.

[murphysgirl]

I think you have it backwards...The Clinton campaign has consisently changed the goalpost multiple times. She's still out there saying she has the popular vote!! Michigan and Florida haven't been decided yet..Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot so how can Clinton claim a full on victory??

Besides it was Clinton who stated in October that the Florida and Michigan delegates weren't going to count because they didn't follow the rules. On May 31 the delegates will be allocated accordingly and even then the math will not be on her side.

[BluesDogLefty]

The Obama campaign simply said that her assertion that Obama was only where he was because he was black was ridiculous. No one in the Obama camp ever called Farraro a racist, but her accusation that they called her a racist was the goal of her vetted and coordinated comments. The goal was for her to say what a lot of people might be thinking in Penn etc and then "charge" the Obama camp with accusing her of racism and by extension they would imply that he is calling a huge section of white voters racist--hence, alienating them probably for good. The Clinton camp sacrificed the black vote in order to get a much larger share of the white vote. Cynical hard-core politics--and by the way hard-core patriarchal masculinist politics. Same old stuff--she didn't invent it. If she did this to an African American woman candidate, she would not have the support she does from women.

BTW I love HRC and would support her; I like a fighter. But let's not delude ourselves about the brand of politics the Clintons play.

[sky2blue]

"If she did this to an African American woman candidate, she would not have the support she does from women."

I'm gotta disagree with you on that. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (do I have that right?) and MA4HRC notwithstanding, most of her support is coming from white feminist like Ferrarro who have a streak of racism themselves.

[sky2blue]

The Obama campaign never said Geraldine Ferrarro was racist.

I'll say it, though. Geraldine Ferrarro is racist.

[MA4HRC]

and a sexist, because in the same quote, she said that she would not have been the VP candidate if she was not a woman.

[kburlz]

And guess who else is racist, West Virginia, and a lot of Kentucky. All these so-called experts can't figure out why Obama doesn't contest the "white, blue collar" voters in Appalachia. It would be quite a feet to convince racists to vote for Obama. Why bother. There's enough states out there for Obama without them. Sorry for straying from the subject.

[DBracewell]

These are appalling arguments totally lacking in candour, a sense of ethics and strength.

"The agreement was not to campaign in MI/FL. The agreement had nothing to do w counting votes. "

This almost tops Bills "it depends on what the meaniing of 'is' is".

" Well she can't win the majority of pledged delegates. But that's not what the rules say is necessary for the nomination"

Technically you could be right. Ethically, from the viewpoint of progressive politics, you've lost your way.

It's hard to reason with someone who attempts to thread any needle to get her/his way. When you blame the victim of racial polarising instead of the perpetrator, when you talk of Obama's popularity as being part of a cult (which is a serious projection problem), your standing just plummets.

One thing I'm dead sure of. If the situation - the decisions made over time by the candidates - were reversed you still wouldn't be supporting Obama. If Obama had done what Clinton had done, I would be supporting Clinton.

Get over it. Stop acting like a victim and accept that your candidate, the establ;ishment candidate with all the advantages, soiled her own chances.

It's over.



At heart, if the situation were reversed, and based on this

[DMW1]

I wish more journalists had the courage to tell this truth. Of course, if a male journalist had written this article, no matter how true, Hillary and her supporters would attribute it to sexism.

[presto]

It is perfectly possible for women to engage in sexism. Witness this post.

[marc1antony]

You are just one of those that likes to stir the pot and see the turds rise to the surface, aren't you? Rush Limbaugh leave you your morning instructions?

[max365]

"Women leaders" my little toe. I initially didn't want either HRC or Obama, I was for Al Gore. To tell the truth, I am still not for either. However, I am so disappointed that HRC bought out the club to Obama's knees. Come on! Her own party! I am still baffled about how she got it so wrong.

I am sorely disappointed in her, I thought the purpose of feminism is to hold your own. Threatening not to vote? I am still amazed the democrats are at this point.

[presto]

You are the victim of extreme bias and misinformation.

This will require effort but it is worth reading:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

[RRonin]

The questions in my mind the past few weeks have been this: Since when has playing the victim been a feminist act? What kind of feminist does not find it offensive for James Carville to say she has three testicles? Or to be described as having "testicular fortitude"? Or being described as "the only girl in the race"? At what point did feminism morph into HIllaryism? And what will be left of feminism once this election is over?

[sky2blue]

"What kind of feminist does not find it offensive for James Carville to say she has three testicles? Or to be described as having "testicular fortitude"?"

I've wondered about that, too! Not only does that disparage Obama? Doesn't that also disparage women in general by praising a trait that's masculine, "testicular fortitude"?

[WAstateliberal]

It was incredibly offensive. When you start sounding like Katie Roiphe, you know you are not the campaign of feminism.

I wrote letters to Senators Cantwell and Murray asking how they can justify their support for such a misogynistic campaign.

Of course, no response.

[KarateKid]

Although the slur was aimed at Obama, I wondered if women would take offense at the remark.

[sky2blue]

It doesn't look like many have.

[Ravoon]

Thanks for your post. I am embarrassed by the Clinton campaign, as a woman who feels that making one's own way in life is the most important journey.
Please Ghod this endless primary will soon be over.

[thegaygardener]

Thank you.
We've heard a very great deal about sexism these past days
And I'm sorry but I really do not think that Sen.Clinton lost because of gender

What is a great concern to me is the rampant racism of this campaign
That I'm afraid the Clinton's have benefitted greatly from
Including this evening where neary 20% of the voters in KY admitted that they would never vote for a black man

I am seriously concerned that Obama is damaged for the fall because Clinton has selfishly stayed in this, has exploited race & ignorance at every stop, and continues to lie about the popular vote & her chances.

Sen Obama has done everything asked of him. He has played by the rules (even while Clinton was attempting to change them) & run a classy, organized, inspiring, campaign that has brought millions of new voters (& DONORS) into the process

If the situation were reversed Obama would have been forced out long ago & Cinton would have declared the nomination hers tonight

If McCain wins in November I know who I (& my family & friends) will be blaming

[kira181]

It doesn't matter whether Hillary wins or loses. That's not the point. The sexism -- no, the misogyny -- that has been allowed to go on in this campaign is unconscionable. Even if Obama decides to retire and she wins tomorrow -- it doesn't change this fact. And it doesn't make it all better. It's a problem that needs to addressed.

You might think it's okay now because it's Hillary Clinton and you don't like her anyway. You are wrong. It's easy to protest an negative "ism" when you like the target. Anyone can do that. What's difficult --- and meaningful -- is when you don't particularly care for the target but you call out the "ism" and protest it.

Read your history. Hillary's campaign has, almost exactly, mirrored the course of Ted Kennedy's. He took it right up to the convention. So did others. Why can't Hillary? Why is she being discriminated against -- treated differently? That's the issue.

You have no idea what would have happened had the situation been reversed. Obama might have been forced out or he may have done as other candidates have done and stayed in. Stop making believe that Hillary is the first candidate to hang in there. She's just the first one to get beaten up about it. And again, if the situation were reversed -- if Obama was getting beaten up for hanging in-- the same question would be valid -- why?

[UnbiasView]

"If we can fight for a nomination as good or better than any man"

Better would mean you beat the man, worse would mean you lose. Last I checked Men had a 100% winning percentage against women so I don't think you can go with that statement.

[xenofile]

"Men had a 100% winning percentage against women"

hmmm. Wouldn't that mean that there are no women in elected office?
Unless they only run against other women.

And fighting "better" does not necessarily imply winning.