Feb. 7, 2007
A Step Back For Feminism
National Review: Supporting Hillary Clinton Because Of Her Gender Does Women No Good
-
Play CBS Video Video A Different Side Of Hillary? During a weekend stop in Iowa, Sen. Hillary Clinton raised some eyebrows when she made a comment that may have alluded to her marriage. Gloria Borger has more details.
-
Video Clinton On Top Of Her Game Sen. Hillary Clinton made her first trip in three years to Iowa, where the first caucus will be held 12 months from now. Cynthia Bowers reports.
-
Video Clinton On White House Race A recent CBS poll indicates that Americans may be ready to vote for a woman president, but are they ready to vote for Hillary Clinton? Harry Smith chats with Sen. Clinton about her campaign.
-
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D- N.Y., answers reporters' questions regarding her presidential bid, as New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn listens at right, at the Chelsea-Clinton Community Health Care Center in New York, Jan. 21, 2007. (AP)
-
Who's Who 2008 Democratic Hopefuls Clinton, Obama and Edwards lead the chase for the Democratic nomination.
-
Photo Essay Hillary Rodham Clinton The Democratic Senator from New York and former first lady sets her sights on the White House.
-
Face The Nation Madam Speaker Watch an exclusive interview with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on Face The Nation.
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.
By Bridget Johnson
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.
 | America's Premier Site for Conservative News, Analysis, and Opinion. |
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 6
- next
See all 115 CommentsPublic people do not get to pick and choose the photos of themselves that get published. They are picked to make the person look good or look bad depending on the bias of the writer.
This writer is obviously biased. The same article could have been written about any candidate's 'characteristic,' be it gender (Hillary), ethnicity (Obama), education (lack of-Bush), dynasty (Clinton, Bush), public popularity (Reagan, Swartzeneger), etc.
This happens to be a very narrow and biased article about Hillary because she is so popular right now.
This is a very good example of the right-wing smear machine at work. It worked on Kerry; it worked on McCain; and it will work on many of the 2008 candidates if the U.S. voters let it.
Voters fall into three categories: Dems, Reps, and swing. It's the swing voters who determine the election outcome. However, most of the swing voters can not think for themselves. It's the swing voters this article is aimed at.
I am a Woman and served in the miltray and argee with you 100%.
Should women vote for Hillary simply because she's a woman? Should Catholics or Baptists vote for a candidate simply because the candidate is Catholic or Baptist?
Funny how that works. Voters' mythos will over rule their logos once they enter the voter's booth. Their votes will be biased, not by any logical reasoning about what the candidates accomplishments were, or how good a leader the candidate will be, but by their own personal non-logical (mythos) beliefs.
However, election after election, we are forced to select our leaders from a handfull of lackeys simply because only the wealthy can afford to run. The Bush dynasty bought the very best 'ad-men' for George and they did a very good job of getting an incompetent elected--twice.
The next president will shine by comparison, regardless of his/her qualifications.
Couldn't that point be applied to almost every candidate? Wasn't Reagan elected governor and then president because he was a 'popular' Hollywood personality? Wasn't 'W' elected because he was the son of a well-known and popular dynasty? Didn't he play the religious thing to win the southern vote?
What were Reagan's strong points? Education? No, not in California. Foreign relations? No, he had none. Strong military? No, he screwed the career military people--forever!
What were G. W. Bush's strong points? None. Zip. He NEVER ran a successful business. His governorship was only so-so. He had no record. So why did people vote for him?
Would I vote (or not vote) for Hillary simply because she's a 'woman?' No, and No! I will not vote for her in the primary simply because I don't believe in dynasties. It's too early for me to determine who I'll vote for in the Presidential election.
Sam - only one poster posed any qualifications that I saw - and they weren't real strong. No candidates resume is that strong so Hillary's is no less than most.
My very original point was Hillary's popularity is due to a celebrity status unrelated to accomplishment. I simply want people to not decide their next president based on what the tabloids say. Frankly most media are fawning all over Hillary.
As to steriotyping - look at the piece here:
Hillary: The More Sensitive President
Isn't that exactly what the author of this article is talking about? Why because she is a women is she more sensative???
It is the author who points out - as I have said before - that the Democratic campaign is pushing the "Vote for a women because she is a women" program. Note the 3rd paragraph under the "I got a C" sentence.
Now it might sound completely reasonable and unbiased to you and the author at ejectejecteject to argue that while Gov. Blanco is "incompetent, weak, indecisive" and Mayor Nagin is an "incompetent, race-baiting black man" while simultaneously trying to argue that the Katrina problem wasn't FEMA and Dumbya's job to look after... But to use the ejectejecteject.com scenario of the wolf/sheep/sheepdog, I think making excuses leaves one vulnerable to becoming irrelevant to a german shepard type of dog who would sense a need and an opportunity and offer up a plan of action and win hearts at the same time. Why would anybody aspire to be a sheepdog rather than a german shepard?
I think the imbalance between the races in that list of incompetents is a result not of Bill's picks, but of their party's power structure. For some reason the Democratic party seems to encourage (pink) idiots to take office. Note that his criticism is for each person's actions while in office. The problem with the mayor/police chief/governor in relation to Katrina is not that they are any color in particular, but that they decided to adopt a victim stance rather than take the action they (and only they) were empowered to take - pink vs grey in the essay. They didn't do their jobs in any of those cases and Bill Whittle doesn't hold back his criticism of that, whatever color they are.
Hi Jummyc1955. I was referring to this article about supporting Hillary, or anyone, based on gender.
I haven't read all the posts here but I haven't seen anyone saying they were voting for Hillary because she is a woman. I was questioning where the author of the article got that idea because I've not seen it bandied about very much anywhere.
To me, the election is too far away to decide on any candidate yet.
I think there should be some time of reasonable "campaign season" along with responsible campaign finance.
If so many of the present Congressional members are focused on a presidential election over a year away, how can they be sufficiently focused on the urgent issues of the here and now?
I skimmed through that article at ejectejecteject - holy ***, how long do you think it took that guy to write that piece? lol. I basically agree with his overriding vision that the ideal leader is one with good EI - strong at times you need to be strong to combat evil, but compassionate at the time you need to be compassionate for the greater good . . . with the ability to discern which is which and what action is most effective and be able to implement it according to plan or even not act as need be. Like he doesn't actually say this but I guess in his terms the ideal leader would be one who is both 'pink' AND 'grey', one of those 'complicated' leaders like a Reagan or a Kennedy who unfortunately only seem to emerge once every 20 or so years.
The red flag for me with this piece though is that all the people believes are incompetent are women and black - just a gut feeling but I sense that this author is one of those people who might be a little more quick to dismiss somebody as outside his 'tribe' if that person is already different from him to begin with - not saying he's sexist or racist, I just think it's human nature somewhat mistrustful of 'outsiders' and he seems to exhibit this tendency to a degree that skews his objectivity imo. That's not to say though that if he has some bias there that it's to a degree that would cause him to alter his choice of candidate, but he does seem like the type that might keep repeating that he doesn't think so-and-so the female candidate is qualified despite being confronted with objective evidence that demonstrates that she's even more qualified than the competing male.
That's not to say that opposing parties or prospective voters ought not to ever question a candidate's qualifications - my point in taking issue with comments from people like jimmyc1955 is that if he doesn't like Hillary it can't possibly be because of her lack of qualifications if all he's bringing out is the old personal attacks instead of addressing Hillary on the merits (which people have repeatedly posted to which he keeps complaining - I still haven't seen nothin' - ugh!)
That alarms me. We have a duty as citizens to question the candidates. What I am sensing here is that to question Hillary's qualifications or positions immediately disqualifies you from asking as you are lumped into the ENEMY bucket.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 6
- next
See all 115 Comments