Will Hillary Ever Be One Of The Cool Kids?
Madeleine Albright once said, "Anybody who thinks the world would be a better place if run by women doesn't remember high school."
I think about that. I remember the power players in my own high school. And I think about Hillary Clinton and women voters.
Studies of adolescent female power reveal a world of alpha girls and beta girls. Women never forget which side of the social fault line on which they spent their formative years. Men, generally speaking, can't relate. Their social demarcations - less subtle, but likely not as lasting - tended toward wedgies and slamming people into lockers.
It is the alpha girls who rule fashion, determine dance steps, set the lexicon, assign seats in the cafeteria, and make the iron-fisted judgments about who is in and who is out. Certain alpha female chimpanzees maintain their dominance over their rivals by killing their young. High school girls just cause eating disorders.
The beta girls, by contrast an equally gross generalization, are accomplished. They get the grades. They excel in sports. They play instruments. They run the student council. They are known, but not revered.
Even if we reinvent ourselves in college, and then reinvent that reinvention as adults, I don't think any of us ever fully escapes the gravitational pull of our middle and high school years. The people you like now are very likely to be the same people you liked then.
All of which brings me back to Hillary Clinton.
Laura Sessions Stepp, who writes extensively about adolescents and families, wrote in a 2002 Washington Post article about "gamma girls." They are smart, accomplished, funny, friendly, so universally well-liked, that they transcend alpha and beta.
True, but I don't think the gammas are created whole. They came from the emotional ranks of alphas and betas, but just repackaged on the power of their intellectual and emotional intelligence.
I would say Hillary is a gamma, except for that part about being universally well liked. And there in lies the issue that her campaign doubtless finds maddening.
Is she the alpha girl who is winning just like she always did? Or is she the beta girl who, forgetting her place, wants to walk right past the cool kids table to sit in the most powerful chair on earth.
Either way, Hillary has a tough job dialing up just the right balance of toughness and femininity - so much so one assumes her speaking notes say: "sniffle here" ... "throw your head back and laugh easily here."
People don't hate Obama. They don't hate McCain. Opponents would simply rather they not be elected president.
What exactly did she do to arouse such emotions among the ranks of the female Hillary haters?
There are many interesting theories.
There is the argument that professional woman don't like her because no matter what they accomplished, she has accomplished more. This is a woman who was chosen to give the valedictory address at the Wellesley convocation. Not content to tell the assemblage to change the world and smell the roses, she polled the student body, solicited ideas and poems, beautifully captured the turmoil and hope of the times, got a standing ovation, and her speech was featured in Life Magazine. Top that, miss thing!
Older women - who, in fairness, are also among her strongest supporters - don't like her because she is too much like a man - willing to do what a girl's gotta do to get what she wants. If there is a collateral body count -- well, suck it up, wuss-boy.
Younger women don't like her because she is one of the over 50, empty nested, cohort of women prone to experiencing their own private summers who Tina Brown recently profiled in a Newsweek column. "Written on their forehead everyday," she wrote," is "Invisible Woman" ... women who "find themselves steadfastly dissed and ignored." To a certain generation, then, she's still not one of the cool kids.
Maybe I'm making too much of this. Maybe it's like Madonna said when Elliott Spitzer was chasing Martha Stewart through the underbrush. "There seems to be something about blond, powerful women that just pisses people off."
But I think I'm on to something.
Try this: Ask your friends who Hillary reminds them of among the girls in their high school. Almost everybody has an answer.
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
I think that the people who were cool in HS hate Hillary because she is one of the not-cool people and has thrived. In fact, she is the standard-bearer for uncool people everywhere--older women, single women, poor whites. It pisses off the cool people (latte liberals, rock stars, Hollywood ) that one of the not-cool people would actually attempt to gain the nomination of the cool party (Dems) and not pander to them. The people who are for Obama are the cool people or cool-wannabes. The people who worshipped the goodlooking, unqualified, arrogant, narcissistic guys in HS are voting for the goodlooking, unqualified, arrogant, narcissistic candidate. And the people who now, as adults, think they can expiate their nerdiness by jumping on the Obama train are also supporting him. You can tell they were narcissitic jerks in HS by their attitudes now--their sense of entitlement--their ridiculous claim that Obama somehow expresses the will of the people when half the people have voted for Hillary--their demands that Hillary drop out of the race because it's so unclassy of her to not just bow down to the great Obama--their comfort with Obama's obfuscations and Republican pandering and total lack of qualifications-- because you know, he's cool.
Their "sense of entitlement"? Are you kidding me? I think you're forgetting which one of the two was the overwhelming favorite--to the point where they didn't bother making up a post-Super Tuesday plan. You can construct your fantasy image of Hillary as the avenger of all the "little people" as much as you like--she still voted for the war, she still takes massive amounts of lobbyist cash, she still has Blackwater associate Mark Penn running her campaign, and she is still attempting to ignore the popular vote and the pledged delegate count by inventing more and more laughable and ridiculous ways of counting: "Hey, if you only count Arkansas, New York, and Rhode Island, Hillary's winning by over 20 percentage points! See? I told you it was a close race!"
This post is a great example of the nastiness and sanctimonious attitude that the HRC camp loves to attribute to Obama supporters but treats as a "who, me? *bats eyes*" issue when the tables are turned. I'm sure plenty of Obama's black supporters would be pretty amused to hear you characterize them as "latte liberals, rock stars, and Hollywood" as would many of the working class white voters who voted for him in droves in all the little red states you Clinton supporters like to pretend don't count.
Jonny, your post reeks of 1970s feminism. Maybe 30 or 40 years ago, women resented seeing a "sister" succeed, but nowadays resenting successful women would be ridiculous, because there a lot of women these days who are successful in the business and professional worlds. I have worked for more women bosses than male bosses and many women in my college graduating class became doctors or entered other prestigious professions. You're talking about a world that hasn't existed in 35 years or so. No woman should be obligated to vote for a woman because she is a "sister". I would gladly vote for a female candidate--just not a lying, cheating, scheming female candidate. I do have my standards.
Missjabez, same here. Padded resumes do not define a CEO. They will be found out, as we are seeing (well, some of us) here.
HRC doesn't remind me of anyone in high school, so I can say that she is unique. But I disagree with Drexler's implication that many women don't like her because they are envious of her accomplishments. I know she's very accomplished, and I wouldn't expect anyone who wasn't accomplished to be running for President. But the fact I dislike her has nothing to do with envy. There are many successful women who are decent and eithical, and I find women like these more worthy of my admiration and respect.
I'm a woman, and I don't like her because she approved the war in Iraq, because I think she's a liar, and because I think she's got the moral compass of Lady MacBeth. Where does adult reasoning (yes, women are capable of it) fit into this glib, simplistic, "Cosmopolitan"-worthy concept of yours? Don't try to reduce the reasons underlying women's approaches, decisions, and judgments -- Hillary's OR mine -- to high school cafeteria politics.
We didn't have anyone half as accomplished as Hillary Clinton in our high school and she doesn't remind me of anyone in our class.
Unfortunately something is wrong with the comment posting mechanism but I will try again to express my gratitude Ms. Drexler. As soon as I read the title I knew there would be meat for a discussion. Unfortunately the majority of comments are proving your point. the irrationality and inability to actually address what you have written is staggering. The amount of venom directed at Hillary Clinton is the epitome of the "mean girl treatment of anyone who doesn't measure up to "cool" by their standards. It reeks of either insecurity or outsized ego and parental privileges run amok, or both.The "mean girls" of both sexes on HuffPo rely use tactics of lying, hate mongering and belittling Hillary Clinton as well as ostracizing, intimidating, and marginalizing anyone who either supports her, defends her or just likes her. I have never seen this amount of hatred in my life. I think it is mass scapegoating . An unconscious ritualistic phenomenon making someone else pay for the inner societal sins. It is grounded in an ancient Hebrew ritual of literally piling "sins"on a goat and sending the goat into the desert to die carrying their sins with it and therefore absolving them.It was a conscious ritual then but we see it played out unconsciously in our pop culture daily. We beat down anyone who has the bad taste to remind us of our own foibles. flaws and vulnerabilities. We crucify them, particularly politicians and celebrities if they take a step that is not
Bless you, Accountability!
And You!
sorry, this cut off again. so weird. Hope it gets fixed soon. continuing from above. We crucify them, particularly politicians and celebrities if they take a step that is not to our high and mighty principles even though we are all guilty of something akin to what we condemn.. We project our own "dark side." Thanks very much for this, it gave me a new flash of insight into this mass "mean girl" clique that is playing out so publicly.
" even though we are all guilty of something akin to what we condemn."
Speak for yourself, for at least I can state with complete certainty that I never condoned a presidential policy that resulted in a global catastrophe, costing thousands of American lives and tens of thousands on the Iraqi side, not to mention permenantly eroding our status iwthin the global community.
Hillary screwed up big time on this issue, has consistently refused to accept resonsibility for it and, naturally, the best thing that Hillary supporters can assert in her defense is that "nobody's perfect.". Go figure.
Apparently, lacking any credibility to defending her faulty stances on so many foreign policy related issues, Hillary supporters have instead resorted to defending their revered idol in the only way they can, by fretting about irrelevant speculation about "coolness" as the sole factor in her readily apparent lack of appeal rather than dealing with the fact than many of the criticisms leveled against Hillary are based on legitimate concerns over the issues she represents.
State all you will about "coolness" or the lack thereof, for it only illustrates the manner in which HIllary-supporters are constantly attempting to devert attention away from the principles that matter.
Hmmm, now when I try to post what didn't show up I'm getting a message that I've already posted this.
Ms Peggy Drexler, as soon as I read the title I thought "Eureka! here is an insight.
Despite the temptation she continually puts in my way, despite her provocative lies and smears and innuendo, despite the smug look on her face when she thinks it's all going her way, and the condescending dismissal of a reporter's valid question about Tuzlagate ("He's a comedian, Jeff."), despite those godawful I-wear-the-pants-around-here whale-hipped pantsuits, despite her dissing Obama's supporters as "delusional", despite her appallingly sarcastic impersonation of Obama's oratory, despite her support for John McCain, despite her desperately dissembling over her obvious lack of any real political priciples and her refusal to publish her tax returns, despite her contemptuous rubbishing of "small states" that voted overwhelmingly against, and despite the fact that she's utterly despicable and contemptible for so many, many more reasons...
well, I guess you proved the point didn't you?
don forget da spite
Hmm... I can't think of anyone from HS that Hillary reminds me of. But I bet she does strike some residual insecurities in people related to the pecking order we all experienced back then. And I also figure she reminds people of their teachers, their mothers and other authority figures who were women, too, and made them feel small or powerless or stupid. (And I will note that men who run for prez surely evoke similar feelings but we don't talk about that because we're all quite accustomed to, and apparently okay with, men who make us feel small and stupid.) But what's the biggest bummer is that any such responses/reactions demonstrate people are not making their candidate choices from the neck up -- and that is depressing! Honestly, people, do you not get that your duties as citizens is to think your way to your vote? We mock people who voted for Bush because they liked him, and we lament those who voted against Gore because they didn't, but lots of posters here are obviously no better.
It is irrelevant who Senator Clinton was in highschool. Right now, the Country needs to elect the person with the best chance of mitigating the truly horrific damage done by President Bush. We need to make certain first that the person we elect will obey the U.S. Constitution (something President Bush routinely fails to do). This person is Senator Obama, who taught the Constitution and stumps for habeas corpus, against torture and against signing statements. Senator Clinton rarely mentions these. Second, we need a person who can restore our reputation around the world. Senator Obama's brilliant oration has already helped our reputation around the world (check out a foreign newspaper) -- his election as President will only increase this effect. Third, we need someone who might actually be able to resolve the Iraq mess diplomatically. Again, Senator Obama is the only one offering a different diplomatic position than President Bush (both Senators McCain and Clinton align with Pres. Bush in their refusal to speak to anyone unless they meet required pre-conditions). Fourth, we need someone who might have a chance at getting healthcare reform passed. We know Senator Clinton couldn't do it the first time around and she has offered us nothing to tell us why she would succeed this time. Senator Obama offers us a chance to participate by putting it on C-span -- at least this is a new idea, and guess what folks, it might work! I could continue, but Huffpo would probably truncate the post.
I'm sorry, I just have to say it. There are more candidates running for president than just McCain, Clinton and Obama.
Huh. I lost the rest of my post too. Blah. I was trying to say that there are other candidates: Nader, McKinney and several other greens, libertarians, Gravel and Paul... I think we need to start looking at these alternative candidates. The establishment candidates (and that is what McCain, Clinton and Obama are) no longer represent the traditional voters for each of their parties. Republicans and Democrats of today are essentially cut from the same cloth.
I don't hate Hillary. I don't agree with her politics. I am a progressive and against the DLC, who were as avid cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion as the Neocons, they just gave different reasons and those reasons were just as disengenuous. The DLC have influenced the Democratic party to lay down to the Republicans and go along. They champion top down politics and disdain the grassroots. And Hillary is part of the DLC.
As Huffington has edited my comments to leave out addressing the narrative the blogger is portraying. I
CC - about a week or two ago you posted a link re: 911 and the massive screw ups leading up to 911. Condi was torn apart in this article. I went to your profile and couldn't find the link. Can you repost? It was a good one
This is a very shallow analysis. Give people credit for rejecting Hillary for valid reasons, like her pro-war, pro-corporate neo-liberal positions. I doubt things like jealousy have much to do with it.
This is a flawed comment. Ms Drexler is not talking about someone who disagrees with Clinton's politics or rejects them. She is talking about the viral hatred that is running through so called Progressive blogs like a fast spreading malignant cancer. This is not disagreeing, this is attempting destruction. Ms. Drexler's "analysis" is a sociological pondering of a cultural phenomenon that is being played out on a national scale. It is akin to a Greek tragedy in its transpersonal intensity. I believe Ms. Drexler is throwing out a thought thread to invite objective discussion which is however not quite do-able on Huffington Post where Senator Clinton is concerned because of the mass mania that seems to have overtaken the general population.. Sad.
No, what is sad is the fact you can't separate valid criticism from hatred, to you it's all the same.
I dislike Hillary because she is a liar.
It's interesting to me how the women/people who are supporters of HRC always talk about how hard working she is and how she is a fighter. And then try to psychoanalyze why people hate her. They'll say: it has something to do with Freudian psychology or misogny or some other hair brain idea. They never consider that yes: hard work and having the trait of a fighter aren't the only qualities that determine the character of a person. A person's character is also determined by vitures such as: integrity and morals.
It is interesting to me how the women/people who are Haters of Hillary always talk about virtues: integrity and morals as a way to justify their hatefulness. They never post credible examples, they mainly keep repeating 15 yearold neo-con lies in an attempt to marginalize her. The fact that there is this hair brained mass hysteria of hatred running rampant does demand some kind of objective sociological analysis if one is to attempt understanding the lack of balance and objectivity in the haters. This phenomenon of mass hatred is far beyond simple Freudian psychology or and misogyny. This mumbo-jumbo of projected crimes against humanity attributed to HRC is bordering on fanaticism and frankly is becoming more than a little disturbing in its vitriolic violence. It is not only Hillary supporters who feel this way. It is anyone with critical thinking skills and capable of objective analysis. They may have different conclusions but they are seeing the same ugly phenomenon. I know many, many Obama supporters who shake their heads in disbelief. We have stopped joking about it as it seems more tragic than funny at this point. Or perhaps a tragedy is waiting in the wings. I do know that when I check the news in the morning I am always a little anxious wondering what new overblown accusation will be flung at HRC or worse, what action might one of these fanatics have taken.
If she is such a hard worker, why hasn't she written any laws? If she is such a hard worker, why does she feel the need to lie on her resume about her foreign policy experience?
Hillary is not a hardworker. She's lazy. If she were hardworking, she would have passed laws while in the Senate. If she were so hardworking, she would have been able to beat Obama, instread of going around making silly excuses about which states count and which states don't.
Hillary is not hardworking. She was 38 years ago, but not now.
There is too much psycho-babble on Huffpo about Women and the presidency taking Hillary as a case study
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
