Hillary's "Feminist Problem"

The Nation: Feminists Rescind Their Support For Former First Lady

(The Nation)  This column was written by Lakshmi Chaudhry.

---

"I love [Hillary Clinton] so completely that, honestly, she would have to burn down the White House before I would say anything bad about her!" exclaimed Nora Ephron in a 1993 Newsday interview. Three years later, she told the Wellesley class of 1996, "Understand: Every attack on Hillary Clinton for not knowing her place is an attack on you." Come late 2006, however, Ephron was the one on the attack as one of the self-described "Hillary resisters" — those who believe that "she will do anything to win, who believe she doesn't really take a position unless it's completely safe," as she wrote on her Huffington Post blog, "who believe she has taken the concept of triangulation and pushed it to a geometric level never achieved by anyone including her own husband, who can't stand her position on the war, who don't trust her as far as you can spit."

This rather dramatic change of heart encapsulates one of the great ironies of Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency. Many of the very same feminists who were her most ardent supporters as First Lady are now fiercely opposed to her historic bid to become the first female President of the United States. The woman once described by Susan Faludi as a symbol of "the joy of female independence" now evokes ambivalence, disdain and, sometimes, outright vitriol. The right wing's favorite "femi-nazi" now has to contend with Jane Fonda comparing her to "a ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina."

So what's up with the Hillary-bashing? "Women don't trust Hillary. They see her as an opportunist; many feel betrayed by her," wrote Susan Douglas in a May In These Times article titled "Why Women Hate Hillary." A month later, in her Newsweek column, Anna Quindlen declared, "The truth is that Senator Clinton has a woman problem."

Not exactly true, as it turns out. Hillary Clinton was the number-one choice of 42 percent of likely Democratic primary women voters in a recent Zogby survey, compared with 19 percent for Barack Obama and 15 percent for John Edwards. And her favorable rating among independent women is a whopping twenty-one points higher than among independent men.

Let's be clear: Hillary has a "feminist problem," and more so with those who lean left.

At first glance, the fault line dividing feminists in their view of Hillary Clinton is merely a matter of ideology. On one side are the mainstream moderate women's organizations such as NOW and EMILY's List, facing off against more radical progressive feminists, especially those opposed to the Iraq War. Some of her supporters claim that much of the anger is inspired by her now-infamous 2002 Congressional vote. "It's about this one vote, which was not to invade Iraq but to authorize the President to wage war. I can't understand how this can be held up against a lifetime of important political work," says NOW president Kim Gandy.

Antiwar sentiments run high indeed, but when it comes to feminism and feminists, the "Hillary divide" also mirrors a deeper debate over the relationship between gender and political power. The ambivalence over Hillary's candidacy has just as much to do with increasing skepticism about the value of making it to the top.

"Having a woman in the White House won't necessarily do a damn thing for progressive feminism," writes Bitch magazine founder Lisa Jervis in LiP magazine. "Though the dearth of women in electoral politics is so dire as to make supporting a woman — any woman — an attractive proposition, even if it's just so she can serve as a role model for others who'll do the job better eventually, it's ultimately a trap. Women who do nothing to enact feminist policies will be elected and backlash will flourish. I can hear the refrain now: 'They've finally gotten a woman in the White House, so why are feminists still whining about equal pay?'"

Jervis's views were echoed by her peers on the blog Feministing, where Jen Moseley wrote, "As women sign up to work with anyone but Senator Clinton, of course, they're being asked why. That's the bad news. The good news is they're all giving the same answer. Being a woman does not get you the automatic support of women. There's no vagina litmus test, people."

Simply breaking the glass ceiling, once a cherished goal of all feminists, has lost much of its appeal, especially after seven years of the Bush Administration. Over the course of his presidency, George W. Bush has appointed women to some of the most prominent positions in his Administration — all the while working to undermine women's rights across the board. So it is that we witnessed a fierce assault on women's reproductive rights even as Condoleezza Rice became the first African-American woman to make Secretary of State.

Opting for Edwards or Obama — who are often perceived as more liberal — becomes an attractive proposition for feminists who believe "gender is not the only thing, not even the most important thing in feminism," as Center For New Words program director Jaclyn Friedman puts it. "Hillary's not my friend. She's not actually progressive. The fact that she's a woman is an unfortunate red herring." Feminist principles may be better served, she claims, by electing a truly liberal candidate who will move us further toward a more progressive and therefore more equitable future — an imperative that feels all the more urgent after eight years of Bush. "Things are so bad in this country, and the person we elect is going to be so important," she says. "The whole put-a-woman-in-the-White House seems too abstract and theoretical, a middle-class luxury."

To be fair, the women and the organizations supporting Hillary are hardly advocating a "vagina litmus test." As Gandy points out, NOW has supported male candidates in the past and is now backing Clinton because of "a demonstrated history" of her commitment to feminist ideals. Even Laura Liswood, co-founder of the White House Project, which is dedicated to putting women in office, fully embraces the idea that women should vote their politics rather than their gender, "if the choice is between a woman who doesn't represent you at all and a man who does."

But Liswood cautions against undervaluing what she calls "the power of the mirror, of knowing who it is we can be by who it is that we see." By becoming the first female President of the United States, Liswood says, Hillary would "change the whole memory scan of young people, in terms of...what leaders look like." Even Condoleezza Rice, reviled as she may be for her conservative views, has done her bit for gender equality simply by virtue of the position she occupies.

[katg21]

I don't know what you mean?
No one is dictating who we go to, where we go or when we go.
Posted by erasmus6 at 10:26 PM : Jun 18, 2007

That's one of our common misconceptions of Canada then. Do you think maybe you could have some of the US too? We aren't as bad as your media portrays us. My Uncle, who I mentioned earlier having duel citizenship, says that the CBC is very negative towards the US in its reporting. Why is that do you think?

[sf_bay1]

Yes, to many feminists it is more important to be a stereotyped liberal feminist to be a leader than to have women leaders who represent the total common interest of the American people. There are liberal and conservative men. I would expect that there will be considerative and liberal women--like Rice and Clinton. Or black men, such as Clarence Thomas or Al Sharpton. When many say they want to break this barrier or that barrier, they are not talking about governing for the "Common Good" of the People.

[sf_bay1]

Yes, to many feminists it is more important to be a stereotyped liberal feminist to be a leader than to have women leaders who represent the total common interest of the American people. There are liberal and conservative men. I would expect that there will be considerative and liberal women--like Rice and Clinton. Or black men, such as Clarence Thomas or Al Sharpton. When many say they want to break this barrier or that barrier, they are not talking about governing for the "Common Good" of the People.

[sf_bay1]

Yes, to many feminists it is more important to be a stereotyped liberal feminist to be a leader than to have women leaders who represent the total common interest of the American people. There are liberal and conservative men. I would expect that there will be considerative and liberal women--like Rice and Clinton. Or black men, such as Clarence Thomas or Al Sharpton. When many say they want to break this barrier or that barrier, they are not talking about governing for the "Common Good" of the People.

[erasmus6]

kaiyo4u

I totally agree with you, something should have been done at that time.

In fact I find it confusing why some things they focus on, are not an immediate threat but other things that are, they do nothing about.

[kaiyo4u]

Hey eramus6,

Now on the topic of dear old Bush. I did not disagree with him going into Iraq. I believe he went about it the wrong way and should not have used 9/11 as the excuse. The fact that Saddam was torturing and killing his own people was enough reason to go in there. I would imagine most of the Iraqi people were happy he did. Of course it has been going on too long but you can't just pull everybody out and just leave their country after you have destroyed most of it. But then you can only do so much to put things right and then it is time to go!
And as far as everything else Bush does......what can I say?
Posted by erasmus6 at 06:56 PM : Jun 18, 2007

I'm with you on that. What I don't understand, is why didn't Daddy Bush and the UN go in promptly after the kurds were gassed? The current situation would not be happening if the world had some gumption at that time. We liberated Kuwait and the UN and ourselves let that event become a bygone?

[erasmus6]

cfin5

"In my rural area, when the hay is cut, there are probably no less than 20-25 rifle reports a day at groundhogs and the like."

I don't think I could handle that! Everytime I heard the shot I would be thinking there goes another poor groundhog! I am a major animal lover. I know, I know, it has to be done for the livestock but it would still bother me.

[erasmus6]

Hilliarynot

I happen to believe that women are more intelligent than men. (don't tell my husband that)
They have more common sense.
I believe that Hillary knows the responsibility she would have being the first woman president.

Let's face it there is no political figure that you can completely trust. They all tell you what they are going to do, but do they do everything they tell you? NO. But I think that Hillary, having more on the line being the first woman president, will come through better than the rest. TRUST ME, I have great intuition!:):)

[cfin5]

erasmus6.....I live in the midwest also and I have to agree with katg21 on the gun issue. In my rural area, when the hay is cut, there are probably no less than 20-25 rifle reports a day at groundhogs and the like. We have to for the livestocks sake (holes in the ground). Nobody thinks anything of it. Even the amish boys are making decent 400 to 600yrd. shots. I know because I here the wack before the report. Everyone around here are very nice to each other and being good neighbors especially in times of need. We even have community picnics and have a great time at it. Life is pleasantly slower and mor peaceful here than in the big cities. A guy like me just could never be happy crammed into a concrete jungle with stressed out folks that live there. I pity them for what I know they're missing in life....My point is it is not the guns that are the problem, but the attitude. This is the America that I know and the country that the media does not show.

[pwrslm]

Who could support another Clinton. They lie, they cheat they steal, and they get away with it because they commit adultury.

Hillary is shrewd. A true witch to beware of.

[erasmus6]

katg21

"I prefer having choices rather than having the government dictate who, where and when I go."

I don't know what you mean?
No one is dictating who we go to, where we go or when we go.

[katg21]

Trust me... We would love Obama but it is because you support Obama that we democrats have to be suspicious about your support for him.
Posted by krisbee123 at 05:10 PM : Jun 18, 2007

I support Hillary, I really, really do;)

[katg21]

erasmus6,
Oh, I can see why you think things are so scary here. I've heard gunshots in the distance but only during hunting season; I live in the midwest. I even leave my doors open during the day and feel completely safe. There are areas, as I've said, that are not too safe but we avoid them. Our media is what's so horrible; I blame them a lot for our bad reputation with the world. It's all about ratings so the negative is reported more so than the positive. As far as our healthcare system, yeah there are problems but I myself have never been effected negatively. I prefer having choices rather than having the government dictate who, where and when I go. I wish it were that easy for everyone and am hopeful that our government will come up with a solution. We americans aren't as bad as you might think; it saddens me to hear your perceptions of us.

[katg21]

Trust me... We would love Obama but it is because you support Obama that we democrats have to be suspicious about your support for him.
Posted by krisbee123 at 05:10 PM : Jun 18, 2007

Honestly, you have me wrong. I don't support Obama, I just think that of all of the dems running he's the most consistant. No need to read into my opinion any further than that. I can look at his voting record and it speaks for itself. Now Hillary is another story; take a look at her voting record and you'll see what I'm talking about. Hillary panders, is that really what you want?

[krisbee123]

Interesting! I lived in Vancouver for three years and one thing I noticed is that my neighbors never locked or secured their homes. They thought I was weird when I did that

[erasmus6]

Now on the topic of dear old Bush. I did not disagree with him going into Iraq. I believe he went about it the wrong way and should not have used 9/11 as the excuse. The fact that Saddam was torturing and killing his own people was enough reason to go in there. I would imagine most of the Iraqi people were happy he did. Of course it has been going on too long but you can't just pull everybody out and just leave their country after you have destroyed most of it. But then you can only do so much to put things right and then it is time to go!
And as far as everything else Bush does......what can I say?

[erasmus6]

katg21

My parents have traveled to many places in the States.My daughter has been to New York and I have been to California, Oregon and Washington.
My relatives live in California.

When we went to California and also when my daughter went to New York, if we were leaving a restaurant or store when it was going to be getting dark, we were told to get to where we were going BEFORE dark. Also the cars all have double locks on them. We also have a certain amount of crime, but NOT THAT BAD!

I am not saying that all your cities and people are bad. It is how your government runs the country. People shouldn't have to worry about whether they can afford to go to the doctor or that they are going to be shot because everybody has guns.

One thing I have noticed is everybody is OBSESSED with guns and politics. Every article I read, people always have to bring politics into it. EVEN WHEN IT ISN'T ABOUT POLITICS. It's always about the Democrats, Liberals, Republicans etc....And it seems like a MAJOR amount of Racism.

[erasmus6]

katg21

Canadians haven't always had a bad view of the U.S. but of course now we have access to more information than we used to.

I read someones post awhile back and this person said they lived in the city. She said that there wasn't a night that went by that she didn't hear gun shots fired. Okay, I live just outside a major city and my two kids live in the city and they have NEVER heard and I have never heard of anyone hearing gunshots in the night or day. That would be a very rare thing. The reason for that is because most people do not have guns.
You need to see it from our point of view. Your country thinks it is freedom to have a gun to protect yourself. We feel it is freedom to be able to walk down the street and NOT have to carry a gun because no one else has one!

We don't understand about your health care and how people have to go without because they can't afford it. We don't have that problem. The only complaint is that there are waits for surgeries. But both my parents and myself have never had to wait very long. And if it was an extreme life or death problem you would go to the top of the list. We don't pay an enormous price for our health care and the people that can't afford it do not have to pay.
continued..

[pkunetka]

B**ch Magazine? LiP Magazine? "Moderate mainstream" Emily's List and NOW? Feminist women cannot afford to vote for a women????? Are these people Nuts!!!!!!!!!!

I am glad I am a white male so that I don't have to self-obsess only my race and gender and can focus on what I feel is right for ALL people.

Sexism is rightly derided in our society. Feminism should be too!

[krisbee123]

Marriage problems have nothing to do with why we republicans dislike Hillary. She and Bill are nothing but snake oil salesmen. Honestly, I have a heck of a lot more respect for Obama than Hillary. At least he stands true to his beliefs and doesn't waver. Why would you dems vote for Hillary over Obama, he is a true liberal.
Posted by katg21 at 04:33 PM : Jun 18, 2007

Based on your analyis, then you would have to agree with me that they are all snake oil salesmen.
Trust me... We would love Obama but it is because you support Obama that we democrats have to be suspicious about your support for him. Like I said, a republican co-worker once told me that he had sent a check to the Obama campaign just so he would defeat Hillary for the nomination. In his own words,"America is not ready for a black president yet so I am pretty sure Obama will lose against any republican"