Hillary vs. The Patriarchy

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020303194_pf.html

Have you read this article in the Post today? It's a comprehensive piece in support of Hillary. The concluding paragraph says it all:

"But I'm sticking with Hillary. I trust her because all her life, her pro bono work has been for mothers and children. And mothers and children -- of all colors -- are the most oppressed group in our country. I trust her to speak for our children and grandchildren -- and for us. She always has."

She has a proven track record on supporting women and children -- that's why Marian Wright Edelman, a prominent African American champion of children's rights (Children's Defense Fund) is supporting her.

I read a post on another thread quoting Obama's wife (from a Vanity Fair article, I believe) talking about how he's been an absent father. Reading the article it sounds almost like he's living in the early 1960s -- expecting his wife to keep the house and kids straight while he's the breadwinner. Interesting stuff.

[Anonymous]

Robin Morgan also wrote a great piece http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/i-am-not-for-hillary-bec_b_84783.html about this issue- particularly about why women are afraid to admit they support Hillary, and contains great text from her speech in China on women's rights being human rights. Also makes the fair, but never mentioned in the media, comparison of Obama to Bush (in terms of amount of experience and charisma, not policies, obviously).

[Anonymous]

I thought this article perfectly summarized my feelings about Hillary and support for her. As a woman, I am tired of seeing a government that doesn't reflect me in any way whatsoever -- not my gender, not my challenges at work as men talk golf and disparage their "nagging" stay-at-home wives (who are the ones enabling these men to live the work-focused and relatively care-free existence that they do), not my motherhood, not the balance I face every day in being a mom, wife, worker, daughter, and primary breadwinner. Is there something wrong with wanting to see a reflection of a better me in the president of our country. White men vote for white men, because they know and are comfortable with a man, blacks vote for blacks because they know that they've experienced the same silent or overt racism in their every day lives. What I want is, finally, a woman's handprint to be on the presidency. Women, and this is of course a gross generalization but one that I believe to be largely true, have an ability to analyze, multi-task, balance, persevere, support and organize in a way that I think men rarely do. In light of Hillary's obvious intelligence (no one ever questions that), professional experience (no one questions that either), role as a mother and wife (if there's an issue, it's caused by Bill, not her), why shouldn't she be president. Sure, people say that she's "in your face", "too aggressive", a "lightning rod", and "too ambitious" -- so what?? Were these terms/expressions to be used on a male (which they rarely are by the way, being reserved solely for women), they would be seen as positives rather than negatives. The double-standards are eye-opening and should give women voters pause that if they embrace such ideas and stereotypes, they are merely putting down themselves and all that women experience every day, as in my view, Hillary is a reflection of so many women in this country. As a result, she has my vote.

[Anonymous]

The only reservation I have about H. Clinton is a nagging fear that, like Bill, she will do what is expedient rather than what is right. It isn't really a gender issue because it was a problem I had with Bill. But now I am curious if anyone thinks that it is easier for a man (back to gross, gross generalizations) to remain "principled" simply because men rarely are forced to compromise and sacrifice in the way that women are?

[Anonymous]

I disagree. All Erica Jong's shrill editorial did was push me further away from Hillary, not closer. Hillary would have been better represented by someone else. Next to Michael Chabon's thoughtful argument for Obama, Jong's self-referential, my-husband-cheated-with-bimbos-too piece seems like dated feminism As a feminist myself, I was embarrassed for her. Positively cringeworthy--especially when she called Obama a token.

Enough with the Baby Boomers, already. See Andrew Sullivan's piece on this for a more thoughtful examination of that perspective.

[Anonymous]

Loved both pieces. Here's another, this one by Stanley Fish:

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/all-you-need-is-hate/index.html?ref=opinion

The misogyny is just staggering.

[Anonymous]

I consider myself a feminist, and am irritated (but not surprised), at how feminist leaders rallying to Hillary's side conveniently ignore the fact that she got where she is because of who she MARRIED. Does anyone think Hillary Clinton would be a viable candidate for President if her husband wasn't Bill Clinton??? Shameless. To say nothing of how the whole thing has a monarchial feel to it. For some excellent analysis of the Clintons as "feminists" check out the late great Marjorie Williams' collected essays in "The Woman at the Washington Zoo." Great pieces on motherhood and balance too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I consider myself a feminist, and am irritated (but not surprised), at how feminist leaders rallying to Hillary's side conveniently ignore the fact that she got where she is because of who she MARRIED. Does anyone think Hillary Clinton would be a viable candidate for President if her husband wasn't Bill Clinton??? Shameless. To say nothing of how the whole thing has a monarchial feel to it. For some excellent analysis of the Clintons as "feminists" check out the late great Marjorie Williams' collected essays in "The Woman at the Washington Zoo." Great pieces on motherhood and balance too.

I'm the 16:16 poster. I just want to point out that a number of Hillary's friends and mentors thought she would be president before she ever met Bill, and have regretted the trajectory that resulted from their marriage. People like Marian Wright Edelman, whom a PP mentioned, probably have far higher regard for Hillary than for Bill. (Hillary was one of CDF's first staffers.) So yes, I think plenty of people think Hillary would be a viable candidate in her own right.

[Anonymous]

Agree with the PP. People -friends, mentors- has high hopes for Hillary's future before she even met Bill. She had distinguished herself (academically, for eg) before she met Bill.

And, even if she had gotten where she is b/c of him, SO WHAT? You think Ted Kennedy didn't benefit from family connections. George W. Bush. Jeb Bush. Among others . . . Why is she held to a different standard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To say nothing of how the whole thing has a monarchial feel to it.

Agreed.

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton?

Enough already!

[Anonymous]

I'm thrilled the democrats have two great candidates to pick from. To the OP- you said Obama was living in the 60s... his wife takes care of things,and he's the breadwinner. Actually from what I've read he made tiny salaries and SHE was the breadwinner AND took care of family affairs. Very 80s/90s.

I also agree with sentiments that a majority of our politicians take advantage of family connections, and Clinton shouldn't be harsly rebuked because she married Bill.

While I admire Obama's charisma, I do not think he is qualified to be President- especially compared to Clinton. Granted, compared to Bush, Obama is a gresidental genius. However, compared to Clinton his qualifications are laughable... and I was EXTREMELY offended when I heard him saying (paraphrasing here) What position exactly did Hillary hold in the Clinton Administration, she wasn't Sec. of Treas. AS IF!! How offensive. As a (new) stay-at-home mom I have a new appreciation for the non-linear direction women's career paths need to take. I wish there would have been more of an uproar.

While Obama may not be qualified and a tad sexist, I do think he would make a great President some day. I'm really hoping for Clinton in '08.

[Anonymous]

Both of the candidates make me want to barf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both of the candidates make me want to barf.

Then you are probably a Republican. As a Democrat, I think we're incredibly fortunate to be grappling with the problem of two terrific possibilities.

To get back to the point the OP made with her post, the sexism makes me sick, but what scares me is the effective way in which the right wing has manipulated liberals into embracing Obama. Everyone from Rich Lowery to Robert Novak is writing about how the Republicans "fear" running against Obama, but they just can't wait to run against Hillary. Why do I have trouble believing the Republicans would be sharing their deepest fears in the national press? I'm afraid we're being suckered.

[Anonymous]

226 poster - what makes you think I'm a Republican just because I don't like the two Demo. front runners?

Perhaps I could be libertarian, green, or even better - undecided.
Who knows, on election day I may have to choose between the lesser of the two evils.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:226 poster - what makes you think I'm a Republican just because I don't like the two Demo. front runners?

Perhaps I could be libertarian, green, or even better - undecided.
Who knows, on election day I may have to choose between the lesser of the two evils.

It's just a guess, because I've not heard such strong stuff as "barf" about both Democratic candidates from any Dem, Independent, or Green Party member. Haven't discussed with any Libertarians! Sorry if I offended you.