Clinton advisor Geraldine Ferraro, the first and only woman to have been a major party VP candidate in a presidential election, views herself as a victim of racism. Yesterday she said, "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white." Hillary Clinton, a Senator from NY who may well be the first major party female candidate for President, can't stop boo-hooing about being a victim either. A male dominated press corps has counted her out. She always gets the first question in the debates. There is a right wing conspiracy against her and her husband. Her fellow Democratic candidates are 'ganging up' on her. If the Clinton campaign isn't careful, it will set the women's movement back a generation or so.
Let's be pragmatic for a moment. As women, it is not in our best interests to be viewed as victims who must remain on the defensive to survive professionally. A good fight over substantive issues? Count me in. An uphill battle? Fine by me. Viewing friends (and myself) as victims because we are women? No thanks. That is a load of psychological baggage that I am not willing to carry.
I commend the courage and chutzpah of early feminists like Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Clinton and Gloria Steinem. Now that many glass ceilings have been shattered, most people support (at least in theory) equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity in education and equal opportunity in the workforce. Both men and women hope that their daughters will have the same opportunities as their sons. This is a meaningful sea change from a generation ago when middle class women stayed home and took care of the children while men brought home the bacon. The battles fought by the first generation of feminists have in large part been won.
The feminist issues facing us now are different from the ones that we faced a generation ago. From Moms Rising (www.momsrising.org):
Gender roles must be re-evaluated through the lens of current feminist issues. It will require a long and thoughtful conversation. It will take a lot of listening by all those involved. The less baggage everyone brings to the table the better.
Read more HuffPost coverage and reaction to Geraldine Ferraro's comments
Follow Susan Kaiser Greenland on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mindfulmom
She
Women for years wanted to be treated equally with men, which I agree with. What I resent is the fact that once women were treated equally they wanted special favors and accommodations, which amounts to not being equal. I think it is hypocritical of feminists to claim they want equal opportunity and then when given that opportunity complain that it is not fair to them due to women’s family responsibilities. The hypocrisy of feminism is that it wants men and women to be treated the same and when women are treated the same as men (good and bad) feminism wants special exemptions for women because they are women. This hypocrisy has killed feminism.
There is still no equal treatment. For me, the prime example is is the perception of agressiveness versus assertiveness. When I mirror the men around me and am as assertive as they are, I am accused of being agressive. I've been fighting that one my whole life. As a woman, I am expected to capitulate. Women are not taken seriously by virtue of their gender. There is a double-standard still.
And I'm not crying victim. It is up to me to change it. But men also need to be part of the change. Men as a group need to get over themselves. Men are no more capable or better than women. But men do need to learn to let women drive once in a while.
And believe it or not, I'm voting for Obama partly because he embodies more of my feminist ideals than Clinton does.
I'm a woman, and I never wanted or asked for any special accomodations in my male-dominated business world. Never had kids either. Never planned to.
All this talk about what a woman is worth in the business world, and how women are paid 73% of what a man is paid... it's not adequate. Do a survery that includes seperately classifying men who are primary caretakers of their children (single men, divorced men, widowers, and men whose wives are the primary wage-earner) and compare THAT number with women in a similar class. THEN you'll have some basis for saying whether men are valued more as men, rather than as employees who have devoted themselves to their job first and family second.
When I was hired in my position nearly 20 years ago, they had to give the man who holds the same job a raise so we would both be paid equally.
But you have to realize that there are a number of forces at play which have caused so many women to enter the workforce: only one is a woman's desire to be employed outside the home. There is also the fact that our American lifestyle has created a need for significantly higher income, requiring both parents go to work. Gotta pay for all those camp fees, soccer uniforms, SUVs, lattes, golf course memberships, and vacations.
I follow the campaign closely, and one day you're crying, the next day you're yelling, one day you're on the attack, next week you will describe yourself as a victim. You're from here - oh no wait, you're from there. I will do this, no, I will do that.
New concepts for your campaign: Honesty. Integrity. Keeping the same message. Staying out of the mud. Credibility and trustworthiness. Transparency.
As a woman, I would love to support your candidacy. As an American and a mother, I never could.
On another note, women have to become comfortable negotiating their salaries and work conditions. Men do all the time.
Hillary's campaing "will" set womems' rights back???!!!
Whaddyamean, "will"? It already has/
Along with race relations in this country, too.
Yeah, Hillary, Bill -- you've done a hellofajob so far! Keep it up and you'll destroy the parts of the country George and Dick haven't savaged enuf yet.
An excellent point, Ms. Kaiser. Like many other feminists, I have watched with great dismay as the Clinton campaign has played the victim card, time and again, using it as a shield from behind which they launch their attacks. It's demeaning, embarrassing and a signal to us all to take a closer look at the true psychology behind the candidate. A strong woman, a true fighter, would much rather be seen as a victor than a victim.
This would come as a surprise to the late Betty Friedan and Bella Abzug never mind Susan B. Anthony.
I was waiting for Hillary to run for president, and one of the reasons was because she was the only woman with a real chance. I chose to go with Obama right after Iowa, and almost switched back to Hillary after the beating the press gave her before NH. I strongly believe that women's rights, or anyone's rights, are not necessarily enhanced just because a woman is president. As Hillary herself pointed out, MLK may have headed the civil rights movement, but it took a president- a white man- to make it law. Identity politics are just that- identity politics. Harriet Miers was not the best choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor just because she is a woman.
People have mentioned Benazir Bhutto. I grew up in India, and let me tell you that both Indira Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto were great leaders and talented women, but they did get to where they were because of who they were. That does not in any way diminish their accomplishments. So Hillary's accomplishments should not be diminished for the very same reason. And her supporters should not diminish Obama's accomplishments for the very same reason.
We may not have had a female president, and some third world countries have. But the women in our country have more rights and freedoms than many countries with women leaders. We may still have a long way to go, but do not do it at the expense of setting back race relations by another generation.
If you are proud of who you are, and how you got there, you should have the same respect for others.
Not a scientific poll but it seems to be spreading. Anyone else find this pattern?
I don’t like passive aggressive people. And I finally realized that one of the many reasons Hillary makes me so uncomfortable is because of her passive aggressive personality.
Many of us have been spent a lot of time talking about sexism and racism. And when this campaign is over and people are able to have some distance with regard to the fall out, I think some very sad conclusions will emerge.
One conclusion for sure is that the legacy of the Clintons’ actions has done more to undermine feminism and race relations in this country than to improve them.
The Clinton campaign tactics have been manipulative, dishonest and in some cases highly offensive and yes, racist.
But I’d like to suggest that we all give race and gender a rest for a minute and consider psychology.
We’ve all watched the many faces of Hillary throughout this campaign. She has lost her voice-- she found her voice. She’s honored to be in the race with Obama one day—she derides and mocks him the next day. She says he’s not ready to be President on Day One. But the next day, she offers him the VP post!
Don’t you just want to punch people who behave this way?
And they do this all the while smiling or acting victimized themselves. They are masters at turning the situation around and making themselves the injured party. It’s quite something. But it’s not normal behavior. And it’s not healthy behavior. And I don’t want it any where near the White House! It’s text book passive aggressive.
Here are some symptoms of passive aggressive behavior and my examples of how she fits the bill. You do the math.
Ambiguity - Her latest response to- Is Obama a Christian? “As far as I know†I take him at his word. I have no reason to doubt him,†Sound purposefully ambiguous to you?
Blaming others - She says she voted for the war because she believed Pres. Bush. It’s someone else’s fault she didn’t make up her own mind to vote.
Complaining – She Invoked an SNL skit during a national debate to support the idea that she felt the media was being unfair to her. “ I always get the first question in the debate.â€
The only person playing the race and gender card and in this campaign is HRC.
Losing things - I think she’s lost dignity and self-respect.
Lying- White Water, Castle Grand—Need I say more?
Obstructionism -White Water, Castle Grand, Clinton Library, Tax Returns
Procrastination - How long have we been waiting for those tax returns?
Resists suggestions from others - The chaos of the Clinton campaign pretty much bags this one.
Sarcasm - “Celestial Choirs Speechâ€â€”need I say more?
Willful withholding of understanding -She still wants us to believe that Obama’s choosing to protect those who can’t protect themselves by mandating health care for children is in some way a bad thing. This is either willful withholding of understanding or just plain obtuse! Either one eliminates her for the post.
I don’t believe that the Presidential campaign is a place where you can do anything you want to just to win. I think if you run a campaign with integrity, then I believe that you have a chance at running the country that way too.
But if you are dismissive, ambiguous, blaming, complaining, disrespectful, obstructionist, resistant and unscrupulous, chances are that’s the person you’ll be when you are in the oval office too.
I DON’T WANT A PRESIDENT WHO IS PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE.
I DON'T WANT A PRESIDENT WHO IS PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE
I DON'T WANT A PRESIDENT WHO IS PASSIVE AGRESSIVE
too funny!
I watched a speech Hillary gave mocking Obama's message of hope - "abandon hope, all ye who enter here..." How despicable.
I'm a white male, and while I don't hold it against all women that Hillary is a woman, I am disgusted by those women who are for Hillary "because we should have a woman president". I've heard Hillary exhort "Help me break the ultimate glass ceiling". Shouldn't that honor be for a woman who made it on her own, not one who made it as "wife of"? And as "wife of" a philanderer and liar, at that.
Clinton has taken this campaign to depths only Rove would think of. I can almost hear inside the Clinton campaign - "Isn't there a way we can work homophobia into this?"
I'm voting for Obama! His positions more closely match mine. And I even think he's a better feminist. ;-)
Misogyny of the lowest form- from a woman that benefitted from the actions of trailblazers such as Gloria and Hillary.
Shame on you.
Taking that dismissive tone and discounting the Greenland post, when she made every attempt to start a civil discussion is exactly the kind of distortion that comes from HRC herself. People are really fed up with this.
Try reading it again.
It's actually funny and a litlle gratifying to read your 'whining' (yes, you are whining....whining to the choir to be more pointed) about women's lot in our 'progressive' society! It is odd, though, that you don't seem to be able to grasp exactly the point Geraldine Ferraro was trying to make, let alone show respect for either one's hard work in getting you (at least) as far as you've gotten today...don't you understand that before you were born Ms Ferraro and Ms Clinton were fighting the same things you are protesting as unequal in this article? Get a grip!
What about the dis-service old school feminists did and continue to do to the next generation by refusing to recognize that while you can have it all (family/high-powered career) - you can't have it all at once - or at least not without taking a huge toll on the mom, the kids, the family or all three.
Why is it that Hillary supporters are so afraid of sitting down at a table and listening to what the other person has to say? Or reading someone's blog and bio before slamming the person who wrote it. Read the bio and do the math before you assume how old she is.
Too bad your points are so contradictory. Mothers make 73%, but most people support equal pay, for one.
Poverty and exploitation was the issue that moved the reformers and the suffragettes AND the later feminist. They were integral to the labour movement and many women (yes white women) were killed, beaten and jailed to stand up for people who were being exploited. And, they were integral to the civil rights movement too. Many of you younger women, but thankfully, not all, have responded to the organized attack against feminism like a bunch of cowering poodles and have become, to steal a local pols words, a bunch of pretty potted plants. And, yeah, my words are sexist. But, you don't mind, do you?
The issue isn't race and feminism. It's fascism. Wake up
I have been cringing through this whole campaign thanks to the HRC. When "divide and conquer" is your strategy for success when dealing with the public you're trying to represent, it seems to me to be a strategy right in line with George Bush et al. A divided US can't function properly and get things done the majority want done. Republicans couldn't have asked for a better Manchurian candidate than Hillary Clinton.
Feminism isolates bits of reality therefore distorting its entirety. How else would explain this ilusion that bringing the same family back to power is to break through some glass ceiling? How else would you explain the attempts to create a nexus, a link between "rape" and Hillary's candidacy?
The problem with feminism is that it does not survive if issues of injustice are seen simply as that, injustice; they must be turn into a big narrative of exploitation of women in general and privilege by men (or "white heteresexual men").
If it wasn't for Feminism, everyone would see the Coporatism in Hillary Clinton. They would see the person who only left WalMart when her husband decided to run for President. But instead, people see a Feminist Icon.
But I just finally realized one of the many reasons Hillary makes me so uncomfortable.
I don’t like passive aggressive people and she is a big time passive aggressive personality.