Bio
The short version: Jill Miller Zimon writes the topical blog, Writes Like She Talks (www.writeslikeshetalks.com) and often highlights the paucity of...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Interview: "Big Girls Don't Cry" Author Rebecca Traister

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 5
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Post-mortems of the 2008 elections, with many pages dedicated to the women involved, are not in short supply. Examples include Notes from the Cracked Ceiling: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and What It Will Take for a Woman to Win by Washington Post reporter Anne Kornblut, You've Come a Long Way, Maybe: Sarah, Michelle, Hillary, and the Shaping of the New American Woman by broadcast personality Leslie Sanchez and Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin.

One of the most recent entries, Big Girls Don’t Cry: The Election That Change Everything For American Women, is by Rebecca Traister, author and senior writer for Salon.com. Many excellent reviews have been written already, and I would only be adding to them. I loved the writing, which is clear, coherent and comprehensive. I loved the sentiments, which are personal, political and pointed. And I loved the analysis, which I boil down to this: Maybe we should have been able to predict some of what happened to Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama, but it's unlikely that hindsight would or could have changed a single thing. It all had to happen more or less exactly as it did, we've got a lot of learning to do from it, and we are further along now than we were two years ago.

So instead, I'm offering up the results of a phone interview I conducted with Traister last week. I think you'll find her reflections fascinating. 


The Interview with Rebecca Traister


JMZ for BH: How much of Clinton’s “failure” in what she presented was due to how hard the public is to read, both men and women?  How much of it (the failure) was due to targeting issues, such as basing strategy on models and time-honored beliefs of how female voters, in the aggregate, act?

RT: I’m not a pollster or political strategist.  I’m just telling the story, so the kind of guessing I’ll do is really as a civilian observer. I’ve done a lot of thinking and writing about it, but I've never been on the polling end.

That said, my civilian sense is that while it may be true that voters are hard to read, it’s also true that, and my guess is that the electorate is changing more rapidly than we know.

But I have a larger complaint, that I have with the Democratic party.  You can see my piece just published in The Nation, "Democrats: Remember the Ladies!".  There’s been historical evidence, the history of women’s issues that led Hillary Clinton’s strategists to act the way they did. It’s easy for me to say this, but I hate the soccer mom stuff, the people pleasing stuff. That’s nuts - [the idea that we] find out what people want you to sell to them, and then sell it.

But the larger point is that I think they were relying on a lot of historical, and in fact what turned out to be dated evidence.

I do believe that there is a renewed appetite, and a re-engagement to talk about gender. Does that mean women are feminists like their moms and grandmoms? No, but I do think that people in politics – and in the Democratic party - have really failed to listen to, since Hillary Clinton ran, [the fact] that 19 million voters supported her. When she became her own candidate and stopped running as a man and [as someone who was] claiming her place in history, and really was allowed to come into her own, rather than be subdued and controlled, there was so obviously an appetite for female leadership.  And we see it on the right: the right is selling women on a feminist-friendly message based on the Republican assumption that we like feminists more than we did in the last 30 years and I am very unhappy that Democrats aren’t paying attention to this.

That was probably a mistake that they [the Clinton campaign] made with youth voters but Obama did not.  Not reaching out to young women was another mistake – they [the Clinton campaign] relied on outdated assumptions [that caused them to not reach out to young women].

JMZ for BH: Would you say that this change makes candidates have to be more honest, in that they must trust themselves and us to see that while they are women, they are not running because they are women? And

  • 5
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
kbojar 5 pts

Thanks for the clarification.

I agree that: “our female leaders will have more roads open to them than their predecessors.”

And to give credit where it’s due, Sarah Palin has helped to normalize the idea that women can pursue a political career and have young children.

Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

Jill Miller Zimon 5 pts

Definitely fleshes that out a bit.

Safe travels and now with the Clinton-Biden swap theory getting some legs and a denial, you just know there will always be a lot to write about on these topics!

Best,

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

Rtraister 5 pts

Hi Karen and Jill,

Yes, am running around right now for book (in Boston at the moment) but just wanted to respond quickly. That sentence is not meant at all as a criticism of Pelosi or Clinton, rather as a reflection on the options for self-presentation that decades of antifeminist backlash have left women of their generation with. We were describing how, thanks to ambivalence toward feminists from those on the right and on the left, open embrace of the "f-word" would likely have prevented politicians like Clinton and Pelosi from gaining the positions of power they have. That is meant to be a lament for the distance at which the women's movement and its achievements are held by those even in the party that SHOULD lay proud claim to them. It is not meant as a criticism of the choices of the actual women mentioned. Does that clarify at all? I will check back here, I hope, soon. Oh, also, I should say that the sentiment is also about a hopeful attitude that a warmer embrace of female assertiveness, ambition and public strength is actually possible for a new generation of women, despite the dire claims that they don't care at all for the feminism of their mothers and grandmothers. I don't see it that way. I see a renewed vigor and engagement with issues of gender and power from younger women (women younger than I, actually) and think it will mean that our female leaders will have more roads open to them than their predecessors.

All my best,
Rebecca

Jill Miller Zimon 5 pts

I'll try to get her attention about it - I know she is on the road for the book and I'm not sure if she's checking in here!

Personally, I'd say that they take that a bit far - I think Pelosi and Clinton have settled into certain ways of communicating w/women that many women will accept even if it's not preferred or dynamic in that Palin way - I can live with that, personally!

But also, as you point out, there is definitely a growing realization that hey, go ahead and fire up conservative women - because the more visible they are to women who differ from them, the more the latter group will realize what may be at stake and step up their action. I wrote a bit about this this morning, but also Women's eNews had a piece on it too today:

http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2010/10/05/tea-p... ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2010/10/05/tea-p... )

Thanks, Karen - hopefully Rebecca can get here to answer you directly.

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

kbojar 5 pts

Thanks for this interview. If you do a follow-up with Traister or if she checks in to Blogher to reply to comments, I’d like to hear more about what she and co-author Anna Holmes meant when they wrote in a recent NYT op-ed:

"An older generation of female Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Pelosi, are about as eager to mount a Palin-style girl-powered campaign as they are to wear a miniskirt on the House floor. For them, proudly or aggressively touting one’s feminist credentials (if you’re actually a feminist, that is) is taboo. It’s considered too, well, female.

But as women of a different generation — of, gulp, Sarah Palin’s generation — we wonder if Democrats shouldn’t look to her for twisted inspiration, and recognize that the future of women in politics will be about coming to terms with (and inventing) new models."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29traist...

Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/