How To Get A Woman In The White House

Okay. I give in. I've got two ovaries and a uterus, a husband, three kids and seven grandchildren. I should have known better, but I've betrayed my own kind; my Feminist-First-and-Foremost Friends have finally convinced me. It is time for a woman in the White House. A smart woman. A real woman.

I like men just fine. My husband's a really nice guy. I've got a son and grandsons I adore. But male leadership seems to have gotten us in such trouble we probably need a woman to straighten things out. There's plenty of conventional wisdom to support the gender change in the Oval Office:

Aside from advanced degrees or political savvy, smart woman, a real woman, brings invaluable life-experience to the table. We're experts in health and human services, economics, education and diplomacy. Ask any real woman with a family what she does. She keeps her house in order, sees to it meals provide essential nutrients, stretches every damned dollar, oversees (and often explains) homework assignments, settles domestic disputes. She is the one responsible for explaining why little Mikey can't whale the tar out of every kid he doesn't like or take some other poor kid's toy away from him just because little Mikey thinks he needs it. She's the one who explains why little Sally can't spread nasty stories about kids on her hit list--especially when she knows full well they're not true. This woman prizes peaceful resolution to conflict, sharing the wealth and honesty.

A woman is far less likely to send other women's children off to war. We're the ones who carried those kids--before and after birth. We're the ones who bandaged scrapes and cuts, soothed our frightened, wounded children. We know, first hand, how fragile they are, how easily they bleed. We're the ones who remember what our babies smelled like, how warm and soft and sweet they were. And we're more apt to understand that everyone on earth, no matter their race, culture, religion or sexual orientation, is some mother's child. Just like our own.

Women would rather talk than fight. We believe in hashing everything out. We are quick to explain why we feel the way we do, why we do the things we do and we want to understand those same dynamics in our interactions with those around us. We demand two-way communication. Ask our husbands. Aggravating? Yes. Time consuming? Yes. Worth the effort to save the family? You bet.

A woman is unlikely to go too far down the wrong road. A bad neighborhood makes us nervous and, unlike most men we know, we don't mind admitting we're lost. We're quick to stop and ask for directions.

A woman in a lousy mood will find someone to talk to, cry, eat chocolate or plant a new bed of perennials. Daisies, maybe. A man? He's more apt to holler and posture like the Naked Ape. Or tear down the garage. Men like their Big Tools.

But a woman knows that words are often better tools than sledgehammers and that, if the only tool you think you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Even someone else's children.

So. When we are caught in a senseless, bloody war; when somebody's children are being displaced or maimed or dying by the millions; when this man's world is neglecting poverty, disease, injustice, and genocide; when our economy is circling the drain and 47 million of us have no health insurance and our kids are not learning enough to succeed in a global economy and big business types are getting richer by the down-sizing, outsourcing minute while the rest of us are losing our jobs, our homes and our dignity; when our government ceases to hear us and lies to us about damn near everything ...It's patently obvious that the time has come for the thoughtful, patient, unflappable, intellect-over-the-Big-Hammer approach to governance. It's time for civility. It's time for honesty and humane public policy.

And that's why--

I can't do it. Hillary Rodham Clinton touts thirty-five years of experience as the reason she's the best and brightest hope for positive change. Were it true, that would be the thirty-five years that got us where we are now. She's chosen the posturing Naked Ape, Big Hammer option, not once but twice. There's been little thoughtful, patient, unflappable civility in the campaign that bears her name. She's toyed with facts. In New Hampshire, about being the better pro-choice candidate. In Ohio, about being against NAFTA. And she's lied to us. Lied. Big time. She did not "misspeak" about running the bullet-fire gauntlet in Tuzla. Saying "I misspoke" implies a little slip of the tongue. A tiny lapse. I don't care how sleep-deprived you are, you don't mistake hugging a child on the tarmac with dodging gunfire.

And worse: A smart woman, a real woman, does not take her child along on a trip "too dangerous for the president." To try selling the rest of us that fiction is appalling.

Smart women, real woman, feminists, know when they've been manipulated. We've had plenty of sad experience in that department and we expect better from one of our own. We want more than just any woman in the White House. We want feminist principles in a campaign and in the Oval Office. If we have to vote for a man to get them, we will.

Comments

[jungpatawan]

When I read the headline I thought "Make her an intern, that's how Bill did it."

Then I realized you meant "put" a woman in the White house, not "get a woman" in the White House.

After I cleared that up, I enjoyed the read. Thanks.

JP

[ButterflyWeed]

Duh - I never got the humor there until you pointed it out. Maybe I've been taking this whole contest way too seriously!

[apresdeluge]

Does a "smart woman" a "real woman" along with her husband allow their young children to sit in the pews of a chuch where the pastor spews hate-filled racist remarks? Shame on Michelle and Barak Obama.

[Carolinacolumnist]

Read Jeremiah Wright's "God D**mn America!" sermon. "Confusing God and Government" was an indictment of policies that robbed American Indians of their land, committed genocide, enslaved Africans, imprisoned Japanese Americans during WWII, denied African Americans equal rights. It's the Social Justice Gospel.

I remember 1963, a time when that Gospel demanded civil rights. The rhetoric was every bit as fiery. KKK members bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama. Four little girls died, not because they were spewing "hate-filled racist remarks", but because they were there and they were black.

There was plenty of furious preaching then, but no African American struck back. No white congregation suffered the deaths of their children in an act of revenge.

That's not the purpose of this Gospel; it only points the finger at injustice, motivates us to demand secular social reforms on behalf of the persecuted, the powerless.

We white folks sit in our own pews, fat and complacent, sure of our personal piety. We like our Prosperity Gospel: Riches for the Righteous, "God wants you to have a good parking space" theology that fosters self-absorption and trivializes faith. No wonder so many turn from faith as irrelevant.

Was Jeremiah Wright guilty of a poor choice of words? Maybe. But with guys like Robertson, Hagee and Parsley spewing holy war and intolerance, Jeremiah Wright might be cut a little slack for expecting better of us.

Should Barack and Michelle Obama be ashamed? Absolutely not.

[interestedinpolitics]

HuffPost's Pick

Well said. I am a white woman, with two terrific children. From all I have read about Reverand Wright, not just the limited videos shown over and over on the MSM, I would feel very confident having him around my kids. He has done an incredible amount of good works for his community, and his sermons are overwhelmingly accepting and loving toward other human beings. It is the government he has "issues" with. Citizens needs to quit being led around by the nose, and do the research.

[luckismine]

Shame on who?

My grandmother never trusted Baptists, my father, despite being married to a biracial woman, still uses the N word, my uncle (the Vietnam vet) has some very unChristian things to say about Asians, my inner city African American daycare providers don't trust white folks much. Like Michelle and Barack, my husband and I have done a woeful job of shielding our children from the realities of 21st Century America and the legacy of across the color spectrum racial injustice.

If you live in a place free from racism and hate speak, please let me know. I'll move there tomorrow.

[ButterflyWeed]

The shame lies in lack of understanding larger issues facing our nation. Putting Reverend Wright , Trinity UCC and Michelle Obama down does not lift up (or elect) Hillary.

[bklynsam]

Beautifully said, Linda. As a 56 year old woman and feminist, I couldn't agree with you more!

[jhamm1]

Thank you!

[NoDrama]

Well, it's looking like you'll need to talk about a VP in the short-term, to me. Senator Clinton may once have been inevitable, but we're clearly in an election cycle where the more voters learn about the two remaining Democratic candidates the better Obama looks.

[jik]

Great piece! Couldn't agree more!

[figliadipetrarca]

As a radical feminist all my life and someone with a mission to empower women and girls in finding their/our authentic voice, had someone told me twenty years ago that the first woman candidate would be running for Presidential Office and that I would be fervently behind her opponent, I would have disbelieved. It cannot be a woman, NO MATTER WHAT, NO MATTER WHOM.

I find it difficult to support my feminist values given the particular traits and history of the Clinton marriage and HRC's particular candidacy. I believe this can and may set back an appropriate potential for a woman candidacy for President several election cycles. I know too that so many Republicans would come out against her were she the nominee (having to do with who she is as a person, not due to gender) that we could well lose the Presidency again and that would be catastrophic. The only way we can lose this election is if she is the nominee for either P or VP slot.

Unlike the Republicans called upon by Rush Limbaugh to vote for Sen Clinton as they know she can easily be beat, I know of many, many Republicans so impressed by Sen Obama and his message of change, hope, unification that they are planning on voting for him in the General.

Time for a new approach to politics. I am very proud and excited as a feminist to support Sen Obama!

[vmarinelli]

It's GREAT to read this (the author's post as well as your comment) - and, figliadipetrarca, you're the second specifically self-described *radical feminist* I've read eloquently expressing very principled, and very feminist reasons for supporting Obama (NOLA Radfem - see http://nolaradfem.blogspot.com/ was the first). Where, pray tell, do *you* blog? (or do you?)

I've also written a lot about specifically supporting Obama as a feminist, fwiw (see http://victoriamarinelli.com/main/tag/elections for just the election-themed posts; I cover a lot of weird ground in other categories which might be less up your alley; I also have a guest spot here at HuffPo today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/_94179.html.)

[ButterflyWeed]

Thank you Fig (and Linda) for casting light on a core issue not often addressed publically. Many Feminists are successfully and simultaneously married. This begs the question, "to what?"