A Step Back For Feminism

National Review: Supporting Hillary Clinton Because Of Her Gender Does Women No Good

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Bridget Johnson.

---

When I attended a California State University, there was a requirement that students take a semester course in women's or cultural studies. I took women's history in the vain hope that it would focus on the history of suffrage, women's accomplishments, etc.

No such luck. It was every bit the granola-breath nightmare I'd been warned about by fraternity guys. The teacher, not the most feminine-looking lady, wore woolly stockings with comfortable loafers; her intellectual husband lived on another continent. In step with the greatest bra-burning stereotypes, the star student was a girl who always wore shorts and never shaved her legs. And since we had to arrange our desks in a circle in order to foster our sense of community, we were forced to look at this teacher's pet as she expounded on the subject of oppressive men. The dearth of cute male eye candy in the class was tragic, but the guys who had no choice but to fulfill the graduation requirement sat slumped in their seats like they'd rather be playing Russian roulette.

For the final term paper, the professor asked us to state which theory of feminism we most ascribed to and why. As I thumbed through the textbook that spent less time on the Elizabeth Cady Stantons and more time celebrating the history of lesbianism, I became an anti-establishment mischief-maker.

Instead of celebrating one of her conveniently packaged theories, I wrote a "none of the above" paper that outlined the principle of conservative feminism. The conservative feminist believes in the inherent strength of women and their ability to achieve whatever they want without a crutch from the government. In fact, the conservative feminist believes that women being told they need a boost to get ahead is insulting to a woman's intelligence and resolve. Conservative feminism regards abortion as violence to women and children, and believes in supporting women in the military, who are vital to our nation's defense. The conservative feminist does not enjoy being discriminated against, thus would not endorse discrimination against others in the form of affirmative action.

I got a "C."

You're ostensibly supposed to learn something in college, and the greatest lesson I received was that the women's movement, with its selection of approved thoughts, is more of an umbrella than a big tent. We're seeing that again now, as, regardless of platform or ideology, we're all supposed to throw our backing behind prominent women in politics — just because we're all women.

Rather than being some great boon for feminism, this campaign is looking like a giant step backward for women, trumpeting the assumption that women are so politically dense as to vote primarily on the basis of XX chromosomes.

"I am one of the millions of women who have waited all their lives to see the first woman sworn in as president of the United States — and now we have our best opportunity to see that dream fulfilled," wrote Ellen Malcolm, the founder of EMILY's List, on the Web site of that political fundraising organization. She added that they'll use their resources for "mobilizing millions of women voters through our groundbreaking 'WOMEN VOTE!' program to support her and every Democrat on the ticket in 2008."

While it would be hilarious to see Bill Clinton and his ego succumb to the title of First Man, the election of Hillary Clinton would not mean some great new dawn for women's rights.

A CBS News/New York Times Poll from last February found that 92 percent of respondents said they would vote for a woman president if she were qualified; this compared to a 1955 Gallup poll that found only 52 percent would. Attitudes have evolved, and in terms of women's rights, we're already at the point where Clinton and Nancy Pelosi would like us to think they can take us. Despite Pelosi's "Norma Rae" performance with the speaker's gavel, the real "marble ceiling" is in places such as Afghanistan, where the real trailblazers are women like 27-year-old Malalai Joya, who despite death threats won a seat in the Wolesi Jirga with the second-highest number of votes in her province.

There are still plenty of sexist attitudes in the United States; I've seen and heard this first-hand. I hope one day that lonely eight percent of respondents in that CBS poll comes to its senses. And are there too few women in office? Sure. But I'd like to see women run more for the fact that they want to make a difference in the public arena and less for feeling some duty to be a representative of womankind. To assume that all women voters have the same goals and concerns diminishes their individuality and embraces a herd mentality.

"Women constitute a huge 'X factor' in this upcoming election. More than 54 percent of the general election voters will be women, and many — particularly those in the younger generation — believe it is about time this country had its first woman president," wrote Mark Penn, Hillary's chief strategist, on her campaign Web site. "And they believe Hillary is the right choice."

Young women like me believe that? Really? It's laughable that a supposed feminist politician has a male strategist telling women what they think.

The presumption that the milestone of a woman president surpasses all else is insulting to us women who take the time to study policy and arrive at educated electoral decisions, and it smacks of the sort of mentality that fuels ABC's "The View." It doesn't make me feel personally empowered that Pelosi is the first woman speaker of the House or Clinton is running for president; I already knew women were capable of as much. And unless other American women have been extremely isolated from the sight of women succeeding in their communities and beyond, they already knew that, too.

One would think a true feminist would be gender-blind and judge everyone equally on their abilities; however, it is now assumed that we're supposed to trade in our critical thinking for gender discrimination at the ballot box.

Rather than waiting all my life to see some more estrogen in the White House, I'm waiting to see the defeat of terrorism, hoping to see the day that Islamic radicals will go down along with the totalitarian regimes that are throwing the world into chaos. And I don't care if the leader who will help us there is male, female, sexy, ugly, straight, gay, black, white, Hispanic, etc.

Now that's progressive.

[juliemd]

How about the dawn of human rights and caring about women and men in this country who try to live on minimum wage? We can fund the private military with no questions asked, but oh, gawd, watch out for those liberal social programs...

PS-My abortion is none of your political business..butt out..keep your reactionary views off of the political playing field.

PS-Why don't you enlist and put your mouth where our money is???

[bm6005]

I want to see a picture of Bridget Johnson. I bet she's hot..not!!!

[getcentered]

HAAAAAAAAAAA!!

The NRO, talking about being "progressive".

Now that IS laughable!!!

If this IDIOT of a writer really thinks the "defeat of terrorism" is so important, he should sign up for the military and join the fight, but he won't because like the rest of his GOP friends they'd rather let the REAL PATRIOTS die.

MY VOTE IS GOING TO A DEMOCRAT!!
I DON'T CARE WHICH ONE IT IS.
The GOP/Republican idealogy has lost ALL meaning.

[getcentered]

correction:

he or "she" should sign up for the military.

[marcodele]

Considering the fact that Islamic terrorism has been butchering people for two thousand years, I don't think this writer will ever "see the day" he desires. And he fails to mention that Islamic terorism wasn't quite so popular until we invaded an Islamic country, blasted away tens of thousands of men, women and children, then expected those who weren't killed to be grateful to us.

This isn't so much an article about feminism in politics as it is another "give war a chance" mantra.

[marcodele]

ooops

SHE

[observantx]

I liked this column.

I%u2019m afraid a lot of voters are either turned off just because of Hillary%u2019s gender and that others are willing to overlook any faults she may have because of it.

The same case can be made for Barrack Obama on the basis of race. Or the fact that John Edwards ran as the Veep last time around. The list can go on for all the runners.

It%u2019s time we started actually listening to what the candidates say and comparing those statements with their past deeds. Also, who are they chumming around with, who is giving them money. We got ourselves into this mess because we got seriously played by a PR and spin machine of the highest order. Now we are trying to cope with a runaway president because too many of us voted on a single hot button issue or bought the %u201CAw, shucks%u201D rhetoric and folksy photo ops.

I believe the vast majority of voters last time around spent more time planning a weekend getaway than researching their choice of candidates.

[mgpm-2009]

What is laughable is the NRO attempting to say what is and isn't good for women. Oh brother....

[billpl-2009]

while the author is 100% these feminists, allow me to inform her about one simple fact.

"Conservative Feminism" is an Oxymoron.
She's fooling no one
-------
Conservative Feminism 101
Chapter 1, Rule 1

"Shut up and do as you're told, woman"

the rest...moot

[billpl-2009]

that's ...100% "right about" these Feminists

...oops

[rjs1955]

You're missing the point Bridget. The whole Hillary Clinton hoopla is not that womena re supposed to lock-step in with H.C., but simply that there is a highly qualified AND popular AND electable woman out there whom all of us who are as progressive as you are (and you ARE) can realistically vote for.

That's progress....

[nativewoman]

~We're seeing that again now, as, regardless of platform or ideology, we're all supposed to throw our backing behind prominent women in politics %u2014 just because we're all women. ~

Who says? Are you incapable of making your own choice regardless of what others think your choice should be?

Nobody is forcing you to vote a certain way.

Do your research and vote for the candidate you feel would benefit the country as a whole.

[marcodele]

This author's concern that women might vote for a female candidate just because she's female assumes that all voters vote rationally. I'm sure a huge percentage vote for the right/wrong candidate for the right/wrong reasons.

I had friends who voted for Bush because "he's a rancher" and had the "Bush Ranch and Farm Team" bumper stickers on their car.

I didn't have the heart to explain to them he grew up on the East Coast, went to private schools, and rode in Daddy's limo since he was born.

[samthetvcat]

The saddest part about this author is that she actually seems to believe people are publishing her work because it's meritorious and not simply because she's a woman - and she's more than willing to accept the handout. Gee, who's setting the better role-model for women . . . the Yale law graduate/former partner of a law firm/best-selling author/New York Senator/Presidential front-runner/mom or the C-student "anti-establishment mischief-maker" accepting handouts from a magazine that women with better options wouldn't want anything to do with? Hmmm . . . (lol!)

[bluestardad]

This article reminds me of a similar class I also had to take to graduate from a education masters program. I was one of the few men in the class who had a job and was conservative the teachers pet was a middle aged red headed lady with short chopped hair shorter than mine who seethed hatred when she spoke of men. I wrote what I presumed was a graduate level paper about utopian society and its social norms from my view point of equal opportunity and responsibility by all with little government social guidelines. I also got a C. The instructor went on to say he did not feel it was graduate level work but would not go into specifics. I let it go because it did little to my 3.45 graduate level grade point and it was already my second masters degree.

[melr17]

After reading over the comments form other readers, I have to wonder, did most of you even READ the article? Most of your comments seem completely irrelevant. As for the person who said conservative feminism is an oxymoron, what right do you have to decide that because someone is conservative, they can't be a feminist. Maybe not the stereotypical, modern feminist, but to me, a real feminist is someone who simply wants men and women to have equal rights, opportunities, pay, etc. Why can't the author, myself, or anyone else have these views and be conservative? Well, we do, so that proves you wrong. As for the reader who said that her abortion was no one's political business, well, I guess that means that murder in general is no one's business, because that's what it is.

[samthetvcat]

Yeah bluestardad, vengeful profs seem to be par for the course - I got a C from a labor prof for pointing out that economists have concluded that labor unions stifle economic growth . . . at the time I felt like it needed to be said - too much naivete and idealism and not enough political savvy (lol!). I was just assuming based on the quality of this author's writing that she probably didn't fare much better in any of her other courses even though she seems to be implying that the C was below average for her.

[jeffstersf]

Ludicrous article. What the hell is she trying to say? I read it twice and her %u201Carguments%u201D are beyond me-- and I have a doctorate! Equating feminism to lesbianism is all I could surmise. I am male and I can not wait to pull the lever for Ms. Clinton (a heterosexual, unless you watch Fox news and read the Inquirer). After 8 years of Bush and his incompetent administration, someone as bright, curious and studied as Hillary will be exhilarating.

[bigwhtpony]

You libs really crack me up. As long as CBS' writers are slamming Republicans, then free speach is just dandy.

The second anyone disagrees with your point of view, free speach is out the window. The public school systems in this country must really be going down the tubes if you misguided Kool-Aid drinkers are the best they can turn out!

Hey, Oprah is on....you guys are missing your afternoon nipple feeding.

[bigwhtpony]

One EXCEPTION to below comment: NativeWoman
A clear thinking, unselfish opinion.

[bigwhtpony]

Speech - not speach

[marcodele]

bigwhtpony said:

You libs really crack me up. As long as CBS' writers are slamming Republicans, then free speach is just dandy. The second anyone disagrees with your point of view, free speach is out the window. Hey, Oprah is on....you guys are missing your afternoon nipple feeding.
---------
I read the posts, I didn't see any "liberals" decrying free speech.

Now, you better hurry. Rush Limbaugh is on, and if you miss it, you won't know who to hate this week. And he's funnier than ever these days, he's back on synthetic morphine.






Posted by bigwhtpony at 03:38 PM

[mswolfestock]

Hey Bridget, you sound just as un-intelligent as any MALE chauvinist I know. Were you trying to be funny (you're not) or were you just trying to get a rise out of intelligent women when you bemoaned the "dearth of cute male eye candy" in your Women's Studies class. Now THAT is an oxymoron - cute guys in Women's Studies. By the way, I also got a C in my Women's Studies class . . . what's up with that? I only got one other C in my whole college experience; I graduated magna *** laude and I am a Phi Beta Kappa member (just so you understand that I'm not stupid enough to buy your load of bull). What makes you think that I should listen to you just because you are a woman? Are you perhaps just a tiny bit jealous about Senator Clinton's ambition and popularity, hmmm? I can't believe that any woman should have a problem with another woman's successes and ambitions, but that is how you are coming across to me. Since this is a free country I urge you to vote with your convictions, which is exactly what I am going to do.

[macusweil]

'I got a "C." '

that C was in college and now she's a freak'n expert!!-- one more sad neo.con.woman barking so far from the right no one but other neo.cons can hear her.. lol

[samthetvcat]

"Ludicrous article"

Yes, exactly - the title of this article is "A Step Back For Feminism" . . . the author's chief complaint is that she believes people are trying to speak for her, and then she goes on to try to speak on behalf of all women and feminism (see "Rather than being some great boon for feminism, this campaign is looking like a giant step backward for women"). Bizarre . . .

[skyk-2009]

bigwhtpony you are no different than any fascist. You don't understand these rights and freedoms because you and those before you have NEVER promoted any. All you fascist know how to do is give away rights.

[bigwhtpony]

Actually, Tony Snow is filling in for Rush today and tomorrow. Not sure whose on Friday.

But Rush would be a little advanced for you, marcodele. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills first because the are severely lacking.

Picking on Limbaugh's painkiller addiction seems like a low blow - even for a bed wetting liberal. If it was some Hollywood leftest checking himself into rehab for the 15th time, you'd probably be alright with that, wouldn't you?

[skyk-2009]

Hillary really scares the bejesus out of these nazi's doesn't she? LOL I mean you mention her name and they go into over drive with the hate and vile garbage. LOL I really don't think the Reich propaganda Ministry is doing it's job though. They really aren't doing to well or they simply aren't being paid any attention to anymore. I guess after Sir Lies-A-Lot they just don't have the punch they once had. LOL

[skyk-2009]

But Rush would be a little advanced for you, marcodele. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills first because the are severely lacking.

Picking on Limbaugh's painkiller addiction seems like a low blow - even for a bed wetting liberal. If it was some Hollywood leftest checking himself into rehab for the 15th time, you'd probably be alright with that, wouldn't you?
Posted by bigwhtpony at 04:27 PM : Feb 07, 2007


BAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA Right! I do hope you are joking... after all HE told us Sir Lies-A-Lot was telling us the truth when he told us we were winning in Iraq! LMAO

[bigwhtpony]

Hey SkyK, I'd be willing to wager that you don't even know what the hell a fascist is! I think I have a pretty good grasp of rights and freedoms....which is why I am so against democrats who would like nothing better than to turn our country into a western European socialist model.

Not on my watch you won't.

[kyle9051]

Wow, I find it amusing, yet somewhat pathetic, as to how angry people are getting about this article. Somehow, fewer people are understanding the content than I thought.

It's quite simple: Women's rights are fine, but putting a woman in the White House for the sole reason that she's has two X chromosomes is stupid. Hillary would not make a better candidate because she's female. Nor would Barack Obama make a better candidate because he's black. The article's saying that both women and men need to think about the issues and put this immature gender battle to rest. There's nothing chauvinistic or sexist about this article, nor is she trying to speak for all women. She's speaking for a general majority, or at least a significant percentage of women. The reasoning is still there. If Hillary's not the best candidate, there's no reason to vote for her. I agree with this author; I'd much rather see a decline in terrorism and a better economy than vote for our next president on the basis of gender alone.

[bigwhtpony]

We are winning in Iraq....what are you talking about? Oh, I get it.....Sir-Lies-A Lot is Bill Clinton! Pretty funny dude!!! LOL

That's right.......it's "it depends on what you mean by "IS"......only swap "IS" for "WINNING". It just depends on how you define it.

To the leftest cut and run cowards, winning means America losing. Sorry.....can't help you there.

[dallison7]

Picking on Limbaugh's painkiller addiction seems like a low blow - even for a bed wetting liberal. If it was some Hollywood leftest checking himself into rehab for the 15th time, you'd probably be alright with that, wouldn't you?
Posted by bigwhtpony

I love this, Rush ranted on and on about the worthlessness of others who would use drugs, then we find out the he is a DAM(N) DRUG ADDICT!! Now it's a 'low blow' to discuss it. LOL

[sharncedar]

"And I don't care if the leader who will help us there is male, female, ***, ugly, straight, gay, black, white, Hispanic, etc."

hillary is all of the above, vote for hur.

[dallison7]

It's priceless!! All these trolls are running around with their hair on fire because they know they are going to have a female commander-in-chief and her name is going to be CLINTON!! There is nothing they can do about it!! They can't stop her!! Slow down scumsuckers, take a deep breath and try saying "President and Mr. Clinton" a few times. LOL

[samthetvcat]

But Kyle9051, aren't you (and the author) making an assumption that Hillary is just going to be getting votes from women because she's a woman? The reality is that majority of women are democrats and the majority of women like Hillary, so by assuming that this majority is voting for Hillary based on her gender and not on the issues aren't you (and the author) insulting the intelligence the vast majority of women (in the name of feminism). Just bizarre . . .

[russellvbrla]

"National Review: Supporting Hillary Clinton Because Of Her Gender Does Women No Good"

Hey National Review!!!! Supporting any a**hole because he is a republican does you no good either.

[bigwhtpony]

I do say it....every time I take a dump! :) It's not the female president that bothers me....it the socialist/communist democrats that bother me.
Income redistribution, nationalized health care, no immigration policy, etc....these are the issues for me, not the gender of the candidate.

[samthetvcat]

"nor is she trying to speak for all women. She's speaking for a general majority"

Two neo-con outcasts does not a majority make . ..

[tejasdemo]

Tell ya what. National Nazi Review has got to have the dumbest group of writers on staff of any publication on earth.

[dogsoul]

That was a brilliant article...

And without reading the commentary, I'm just going to assume the racist & sexist liberals are frothing at the mouth about it...

absolutely brilliant

[billpl-2009]

russellvbrla

"Hey National Review!!!!
Supporting any a**hole because he is a republican does you no good either."

Untrue...they don't like Rudy

[marcodele]

bigwhtpony: You mean Bush has had an immigration policy? Gee, how did those 11 million illegal immigrants get in?

[one_american]

Hurrah for the NEW progressive!

It has NOTHING to do with liberalism!

[fascistusa]

Hillary is a Neo-Con. She's bought and paid for.

The whole Women's Liberation thing was invented by the Elite to destroy families, get more slaves.. I mean workers in the work force, and to annihalate marriage.

American Values? DO NOT EXIST.

[minminmin-2009]

Bravo. Let's stick to issues and ideas, not pants and skirts.

[susanhelit]

Same ole same ole - when a female candidate is viable, a 'kept' style female will be trotted out to denounce her, and feminism, and suggest that women can't vote for Clinton - we'd just be being sexist if we did!

Funny how her whole impressions of her class have to do with what the teacher and top student wore - talk about living up to the stereotype of catty women only interested in clothes!

[cntrygrllst]

I think we should all watch for awhile and see who the best person for the job is and elect them on that not the clothes they wear.
I agree with the author I haven't been living to see a woman in the whitehouse I don't care the race creed or color as long as the person elected has at least a half a brain

[adian1-2009]

The article says nothing new. In fact, it lets out some kind of poisonous feelings in the author. Like she is playing on two sides our of two. The American society, though there will always be misogenous and prejudiced men and women, does not need this kind of discourse any more. I have it clear, I think. I am a man. I prefer Clinton to Obama or Edwards. I prefer Clinton because Gore is not in. Otherwise I would have preferred Gore. No sexism involved in my judgment. Do we need this kind of reprimand from this lady-author? Come on, do something useful!! Your kind of feminism does not help EGALITE!!

[lovey13-2009]

I think Hillary could win the presidential election if she would get totally serious on the need of the american people.Politics is everywhere,but our president must get health care for all americans.Our president must address the american family and look at the everyday life of the common people and what they think.A women or man makes no difference. Its the the people of America thats important. If we can spend Billions of tax dollars on War,then we can spend that on our own people. Hillary can do it. She must take politics aside ,and look deep into the American family live. After all,we are America not Irak