« Joe Solmonese's pain in the neck | Main | Those over-compensating Republicans »
January 11, 2008
I don't get it, Gloria
Posted by: Chris
Gloria Steinem's op-ed in yesterday's New York Times is such a confused mish-mash of rationalizations for Hillary Clinton's candidacy that it's easy to see how some of us who aren't "profoundly misogynist" nonetheless believe the women backing Hillary because of her "femaleness" have overstated their case.
Steinem's central point is that gender is a greater barrier to office than race, even as she claims not to be engaging in a "competition for who has it toughest." She asks whether a woman born in exactly Barack Obama's circumstances would ever have made it to the U.S. Senate, much less have a shot at the presidency, but she never stops to ask whether a black woman with Hillary Clinton's bio would ever have enjoyed the advantage of her husband's success at the highest level of politics to slingshot her on her way.
The point is that Hillary's path is the privileged one here, in a way that only a female candidate could be. She emerged into regional and national prominence because of her husband, not because of herself. Unlike Nancy Pelosi or even Elizabeth Dole, it was Hillary Clinton's husband who opened her door, however admirably she has taken advantage of that fact.
Similarly, Steinem and many other Clinton supporters crow about Hillary's unprecedented experience when in fact she's held public office for fewer years than Obama: her six years in the U.S. Senate vs. his 10 years in the Illinois and U.S. senates. Steinem calls Clinton's two terms as first lady "unparalleled on-the-job training" and perhaps it was but not unprecedented in any impressive sense; the Clintons both insisted during the '90s that she played no actual policy-making role. As Chris Rock recently put it, "I've been with my wife for 10 years now. If she got onstage right now, y'all wouldn’t laugh at all."
Steimen professes to worry that Hillary "is accused of 'playing the gender card' when citing the old boys' club, while [Obama] is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations." The difference is that Obama cites that great struggle in an inspirational manner that assumes we are all on the same side.
Hillary sometimes does the same, when she talks about the historical impact of her candidacy, but on many other occasions it's clear she's wagging her finger, like when she complained on "Access Hollywood" about a supposed double-standard that allows male candidates to cry but not female. Can anyone imagine a male candidate winning a presidential primary because of his tears? Just which way is the gender knife cutting?
Ultimately, the difference here is that Barack Obama's candidacy transcends race; meanwhile Hillary Clinton is not just mired in gender politics, her biography and claim to "experience" actually depend upon it.
Obama needs identity politics like a fish needs a bicycle. The same cannot be said of Hillary.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e54fd9e8e18833
Comments
-
To vote for a woman because she is a woman, is just as stupid, (perhaps more ignorant because you claim you're doing the intelligent thing) to vote against her because she is woman.
Did I hear a rumor that Hillary is a woman??
-
Well, thank you for mentioning Elzabeth Dole - could you imagine the howls of derisive laughter if (say) Peggy Noonan wrote a column arguing that she should be re-elected, appointed Minority Leader then the GOP nominee in 2012 because her marriage provided twenty-one years of 'on-the-job training'?
Still, if this comes to pass, I really look forward to Alma Powell's confirmation hearings for the post of Secretary of State. :)
-
RR, so you're fer Hillary or agin'? I can't figure out...
TT, that was the point of the angry lesbian blog. No one is voting for her JUST because she's a woman. The question is whether it's justified for that to be the deciding factor of many.
Craig, very nicely put.
-
Three words to Gloria Steinem: CAROL MOSELEY BRAUN*
*Barack Obama's predecessor once-removed, also ran for President.
-
I guess ending up at this post is what I get for checking in on Andrew Sullivan occasionally. Sigh. Well, I disagree on a few points that you and your commenters make and feel compelled to tell you why.
First, I am surprised that you cite Elizabeth Dole as an example of a woman who is successful on her own merits when most of her jobs were due to her marriage to wonderboy Bob Dole.
Secondly, of course gender plays a role in this election, as does race. It is the first time that a person of color or a woman has an actual chance of becoming president. (Unfortunately Carol Moseley Braun never even made it to the Iowa caucuses). But to imply that a woman would vote for another woman based only on that fact -- regardless of factors such as the candidates policies or record -- that is highly insulting to all women.
And lastly, what is the "angry lesbian blog" you refer to? I hope it's not "Shakespeare's Sister," because if so you obviously know nothing about that blog and need to do a little research. You're welcome to visit my blog -- after reading this post of yours, this is certainly one angry lesbian.
-
Chris,
1)
"after reading this post of yours, this is certainly one angry lesbian" - you charmer you.2)I disagree. I do think people are voting for Hillary just because she is a woman (or a close facsimile thereof). I believe there exist an element in society that wants that particuliar glass ceiling broken.
3)As far as having "On the Job Training" because her husband was the President.......puh-leaze. Hell, lets' vote for Chelsea. Mrs. Clinton alienated a good number of people and I question if she's learned, or unlearned that talent.
4)N.H. was a total scam. She lost that primary.
-
First, I am surprised that you cite Elizabeth Dole as an example of a woman who is successful on her own merits when most of her jobs were due to her marriage to wonderboy Bob Dole.
She (Elizabeth Dole) attended Duke University, graduating in 1958, and followed that with post-graduate work at Oxford University in 1959. She earned a master's degree in education from Harvard University in 1960 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1965.
Further, she had already worked for two Presidents BEFORE she even married Bob Dole in the first place.
When many Democrats left the White House following Richard Nixon's replacement of Johnson, Dole did not. From 1969 to 1973, Elizabeth Dole served as Deputy Assistant to President Nixon for Consumer Affairs. In 1973, Nixon appointed her to a seven-year term on the Federal Trade Commission.
-
An unfortunate reprise of early feminism which downplayed racism towards blacks. It's actually ignorant beyond belief to suggest that racism plays less of a role than sexism, particularly as Obama has no spouse to ride upon.
Black men, in terms of education, incarceration, and income have a much tougher deal than a rich, white, christian woman. That's the simple truth. Deal with it.
-
Please. It is ignorant to bring race into this and another attempt to bring something to the forefront in order to have someone lose. Doing this now is fool hearted and destructive...it will come soon enough from real bigots and racists.
And in re to Hilary Clinton, keep it up . Write about her disparagingly every day. Make sure it gets the best links. It is a sure way to elect her.
-
Please. It is ignorant to bring race into this and another attempt to bring something to the forefront in order to have someone lose. Doing this now is fool hearted and destructive...it will come soon enough from real bigots and racists.
And in re to Hilary Clinton, keep it up . Write about her disparagingly every day. Make sure it gets the best links. It is a sure way to elect her.
-
Emily's List disagrees, Chris. Unwanted pregnancies of lesbians right to an abortion surmounts civil rights for homophiles. Free and open discussion on the merits of candidates' views is barred by Emily's List's boy Joe Solmonese to play their PAC-man, lest Hilary's views, very pro-feminist, reflect badly against Mike Gravel, very pro-gay equality.
But that's not the point, right? Isn't that YOUR position? You approve of censorship, dissenting views, and other voices than yours, just like Solmonese, Emily's List, and HRC.
If you played the "gay" card, well, that would be inappropriate for others to disparage, because a gay man is entitled to be president just as Hilary, Emily's, and HRC are "entitled" to censor views that don't work for their cause.
NBC, CNN, FOX agree with you. Let's have NONE of those views which might expose ghosts in closets or makes feminism "by tears" appear like a device acceptable to mindless homosexuals.
Emily's List (and its doyne Solmonese) plays the feminist card by excluding Mike Gravel because Gravel's PRO-INCLUSIVE gay marriage would make Hilary look bad to GLBT, and well, you agree with those ends to justify the means?
Consistency in amor is never possible, but it is desirable in advocating EQUALITY. Otherwise, hypocrisy, a.k.a., Double Standards, makes all injustice justifiable. Unless, of course, you exempt yourself from everyone else.
-
PookyShoehorn:
Sorry, you totally missed my point. Sen. Elizabeth Dole is up for re-election this November, and while I think she wouldn't be a half bad Senate minority leader (which is damnation with faint praise, because a monkey with Tourettes would be an improvement on the current Republican leadership) citing her marriage as 'on-the-job training' would be the worse possible argument. It would be mocked without mercy, and deservedly so.
Certainly wouldn't close the deal with me, because I expect Sen. Dole (and Sen. Clinton for that matter) to bring a LOT more to the table than a marriage certificate. That's called taking women in public life seriously.
-
WHAT is all this talk about The Angry Lesbian. I have that name trademarked. It's been MY BLOG for years.
-
I have that name trademarked. It's been MY BLOG for years.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Rudy Rodriguez on Jan 11, 2008 12:58:15 PM:
Absolutely right, Chris. I believe Steinem's column the day before the NH primary was an indication of how quickly Clinton and her supporters will raise the gender card as soon as she is the least bit threatened. As long as she's the front-runner, I doubt we'll hear much more about it.