BlogHer - Why Thirtysomething Women need Hillary Clinton, and Why She Needs Us - Comments

Hillary debate continues over here...

Lisa Stone — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:24:00 -0600

Hi everyone,

Please forgive my absence -- working on deadlines that have kept me away from this fantastic conversation. Just want to make sure you all see Faboo Mama's post continuing the discussion here:

Women, Race and Hillary Clinton

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

Half-way through

Suzanne Reisman — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:38:20 -0600

Half-way through that long rant I realized that I re-wrote essentially everything you said, but posted it anyway since it took me so long to write. :)

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Clean slates

Suzanne Reisman — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:37:02 -0600

No, I don't think that a completely clean slate is possible in this day and age. However, I think that Clinton has amassed more than your usual share of enemies for a variety of reasons, and this will hinder her presidency. Maybe this would happen to any female candidate, but I think she has a special and unique place in the dark spots of many peoples' hearts, which is unfair and unfortunate, but a real problem.

As for Obama, I'm not necessarily supporting him, either. I'm just saying why I don't currently support Clinton. Come Super Tuesday, I'm torn to who I will support, but leaning toward Edwards. I also liked solid, boring Bill Richardson, but that's too late now. Oh well.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Suzanne - I respect your opinions and am curious what you think.

lauriewrites — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:58:27 -0600

I hear what you're saying about "old" vs. "new" Clinton. If we're talking Clinton v. Obama, what in your opinion takes him past platitudes?

Also, do you think it's possible for ANY candidate in this country to come in with a 'clean slate"? Really? I just don't think it's possible.

Laurie
LaurieWrites

Nelle, this is awesome.

lauriewrites — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:51:23 -0600

All of it, but the last paragraph, especially. You got me. I totally agree.

Laurie
LaurieWrites

Not sure I understand...

Marilyn — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:36:03 -0600

...what you mean by this: "we do need a new collective identity as women. "

The Land of Moo

Co-Founder of Bloggers for Darfur

I think you're right, Suzanne

Jill Miller Zimon — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:13:31 -0600

I agree with pretty much everything you've written. I thought that I have read some comments in some of the campaign-type threads that seemed to reflect a feeling that some women think other women believe that all women should feel obligated to vote for Clinton because she's a woman - I was trying to address that by saying, of course that's not right. But I should never be writing posts or comments after 5pm - I get a little loopy. :)

I hear you - I understand - I agree. I read some of Morra's original post as trying to offer different ways for younger women to see what's transpiring - I was just trying to add a little more, in terms of facets, for how this whole thing might look, from all the angles revealed in these comments, and additional thoughts I've been having.

Thanks.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Women candidates are definitely important!

Suzanne Reisman — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:40:51 -0600

I don't think that anyone would disagree that it is great to have women running for - and winning - public office. The debate centers around whether women in their 30s are missing out on something by not supporting Clinton's candidacy, i.e. - not voting for her. Like pretty much everyone in this forum, if she does win the Democratic nomination, I will be out there doing whatever I can to see that she gets elected. This will be because, knowing who the pool Republican nominees are, Clinton will then best represent my hopes, interests, and dreams for America. That's what this debate is about - whether women in their 30s are missing out on something by not supporting Clinton's early candidacy, i.e. - not voting for her in primaries.

I also don't really think that anyone here is saying that we are obligated as feminists to vote for Clinton merely because she is a woman. If that were the case, these same Clinton supporters would have been all over Elizabeth Dole's campaign. Instead, what's interesting here is that Clinton is the first woman candidate (again, ignoring Pat Schroder, who ran in 1988 and rocks in every way) who is a woman and is mostly on with progressive ideals, and that's clearly the crux is the issue: should we jump on the bandwagon because she's the best thing to ever come along in presidential politics or should we continue to wait to find the "perfect" woman candidate? (As you just said.)

I get that no one is perfect, of course, but I also think there is so much baggage with Clinton that I can't feel enthusiastic. I want more women to run. It is inspiring to see a woman out there, and I am horrified at how she is being pilloried and scrutinized in a sexist way. I am extremely grateful that she is out there balzing the trail for other women, and it is possible that the next female candidate will have an easier time because Clinton is smashing down barriers. She deserves major kudos for that. That still doesn't mean I need her as president as much as she needs my vote.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Indugle me a couple of more thoughts?

Jill Miller Zimon — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:59:06 -0600

I read earlier this week somewhere that there's something in stats about how women get more radical as they get older, particularly in their 50s and 60s.

Now, I have no scientific evidence for that or the following, but here's what I've seen and experienced:

As I got past 40 (now 45), I really felt great that I'd made it that far. But what's happened is that, with enjoying each year as much as I can, I find that that includes making good on promises, thoughts, dreams of doing something, changing something, taking action, standing for something, sooner rather than later.

I just find that there's something in the action of Clinton being in the race that I'm very, very happy about. Even though I have said for more than a year, she's not my choice, I don't expect to vote for her unless she's the Dem candidate and so on.

So, imagine that she wasn't in the race - that there were no women in the race. If you're a Democrat, you may share with me the eye roll when you see all the men up on the Republican debate stages - that sight just bugs me. But the Dem debate stage is so much more diverse.

Now - is it really, sincerely, truly diverse? I don' t know - but it's sure a lot more diverse-looking than the Republican stage. And that is due to Obama, Richardson and Clinton, for starters. I am really proud about that for the Democratic party.

So - let me go back a graph - what if there was no woman on that debate stage?

If you're under a certain age, it sounds as though chances are that you'd say, that sucks but there will be more years. But if you're my age or older, chances are that you'd say that it's intolerable - what can I do to change that as quickly as possible.

That does NOT mean that you'd vote for whomever the female is. But do you see how important it is to have a woman running - even if she loses, and even if we want her to lose, or at least we want someone else to run?

And the only way I believe more women WILL run is if they see the experience of what it is to be a woman running, win or lose, good candidate or bad. Sure, we can also will our way onto that stage and say, there's no one like me there - I'm going to get me or someone like me there asap.

But to have that happen sooner (as in, this election year), rather than later - do you not see how that moves everything up for the NEXT generations?

I guess what I'm saying is, I'd like to teach the world to sing. :) That is, I wish that everyone could see how progress has to keep marching forward, not just wait for the exact right candidate. We do not and no one should ever be made to feel that they have to vote for The Woman, or The Jew, or The Black and so on. Never.

But the value of having someone there who hasn't been there before (insofar as they represent a group that's never reached that level or participation), well - I just would like to see more support for that.

Thanks.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Not that flavor of Republican

Pam — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:51:04 -0600

Heavens, no. More old school, of your small gov't/tax relief flavor.More like the yeah, you can have your gun but I still think we should pay for schools.She voted yes on the Patriot Act. Man, I hate the Patriot Act. And Yes on the war.

Yes, Edwards did too. Why do I trust him to vote left more than I do Hilary? I have NO idea.
.

Nerd's Eye View

Ah...that makes alot more sense

abswyg — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:36:03 -0600

Yes, husbands can be much less enlightened and much more problematic than 4 year olds. Thanks for clarifying.

Amy S.
Up With Moms (http://upwithmoms.blogspot.com/)

Has Ms. Steinem underestimated her achievements...

abswyg — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:28:26 -0600

or is she just out of touch?

Almost 38 here and couldn't agree more with TRV, faboo mama, Karoli and Suzanne.

Ironically, we thirty-somethings are a product of the rights and privileges that Ms. Steinem fought so hard for in the 60's and 70's. We grew up firmly entrenched in the notion that we could "bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan." We were the first generation to enjoy Title IX. Many of us are living the existence that Ms. Steinem envisioned, and while we're not blind to the fact that things are far from equal, to accuse younger women of hoping to "deny the sexual caste system" is to practically dismiss her four decades of women's rights achievement. The "sexual caste system" simply does not exist as her generation once knew it and so we're WAY beyond the "You Go Girl" feminism.

We also happen to be a generation of women who can see past the hype and hyperbole of the mainstream media. To suggest otherwise is another step backwards for women's rights. We should be celebrating the fact that we finally have a generation of women who are free of the boundaries of our gender to make truly informed decisions about which candidate to support.

Amy S.
Up With Moms

It might be...

nelle2nelle — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:05:14 -0600

and it might not be. There was more shared with me on the root of this, namely a husband that was described as 'clueless' and would never vote for a woman running for president.

I agree that your point has merit, and that it can and could be a factor here... but I'm also a parent of 23 and 16 year olds, twice lived through parenting said age, and kids do pick up on what is said around them.

nelle

4 Year Olds Just Aren't that Sophisticated

abswyg — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:04:45 -0600

As an expert on 4 year olds, given that I live with one, I can tell you with 100% certainty you're reading WAY too much into your boss' story. I just asked my 4 year old daughter if I should vote for a girl or a boy for President. She predictably replied, without hesitation, "A girl, because I like girls." It's as simple as that. Age 4 is when girls and boys finally notice that there's a difference between them. Girls gravitate to girls and boys gravitate to boys simply because they like playing the same kinds of things. My daughter refused a play date with a boy the other day because, "He doesn't have any girl toys."

Your boss' 4 year old also doesn't have the reasoning skills to realize, "Mom's a girl and therefore she might like to vote for the girl." 4 year olds are the center of their universe and therefore any opinion they might hold is the only opinion that exists.

Amy S.
Up With Moms (http://upwithmoms.blogspot.com/)

I'd've voted for her in the 1990s

Suzanne Reisman — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:09:53 -0600

But I can't bring myself to do so now. She's not a good candidate for many reasons. When she said she just found her voice, it made me want to cry. Lady, you had your voice a long time ago and traded it in for power. I can't help but think of the strong positions she used to have but have been backing away from in more recent times. Welfare reform. Abortion. Child care. Not that she is anywhere close to a Republican, but her fierce advocacy has become "pragmatic" platitudes, like "let's just try and reduce unwanted pregnancy." What rational person on earth wouldn't agree with that? But it's not good enough for me at a time when policy is increasingly being made by complete zealots. I want someone whose not afraid to stand up for what she believes.

Another reason I think she is not a good candidate is that too many people in this country already hate her. There is nothing she can do to make these people change their mind, and there are too many others who think poorly of her from her past. I think the NY Times today said 40% of people don't like her. That's a damn lot of people to try and please who probably won't be appeased anyway. Because this society is so sexist, I want the first female president to come in with as clean a slate as possible. This does not mean that large numbers of people are already opposed to anything you may propose because in 199-whatever, you wore a headband and said you aren't Patsy Cline. (Which, in fact, was exactly what I loved about her. I'd vote for that women in a flat second.)

I don't like that Clinton is being held to double standards in this race. It makes me angry as hell. But it also doesn't mean I'll vote for her. And it's not because my priorities are not old school (white) feminist (I think I proved this in some of my other posts). It's because I'm not voting for someone who I don't 100% trust to not sell me and my interests out just because she a woman who is trying to prove that she can be strong and thus is forced to try and sell out on the issues I think are important. I'm not even sure that makes sense, but it's how I feel.

For the record, I'm 32. I don't mind waiting a little longer for another Pat Schroder or a pro-choice Victoria Woodhull (first female presidential candidate, 1872).

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Why Thirtysomething Women need Hillary Clinton, and Why She Needs Us

Morra Aarons Mele — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:46:14 -0600

We may not like to admit it, but we both need the women’s movement. In New Hampshire yesterday, 57% of voters were female, of those, 46% voted for Clinton. Hillary won among all age groups except 18-24 (which she never expected) and 30-39 year olds (36% Clinton, 42% Obama). I have not been able to find cross-tabs by age and gender, but all 30-39 year olds in N.H cannot be male. In Iowa, younger women did not vote for Hillary, and it hurt her there. And last night, although the numbers were tighter, more women 30-39 voted for Obama too.This is my age group, and much of BlogHer’s readership as well. What gives?

I think it’s the way that a vote for Hillary symbolized not only a vote for old-fashioned politics, but for old-fashioned feminism (and old fashioned white feminism- see here for whattamisaid and here for Maria Niles' amazing post). Even last night, I heard some anchor relating Hillary’s focus on children’s issues and health care, "you know, women’s issues” as key to her success with women. Not so fast. ALL voters yesterday stated the economy as their number 1 concern, but too often Hillary has pitched her career to sound like that of a liberal social worker’s in an attempt to appeal to women. To many women of my generation, do-gooder feminism leaves us cold. It’s tired, out of touch, and not nuanced enough for the everyday sexism and scary realities of our world.

As I wrote last week, the “You Go Girl” nature of many women’s political campaigns rings false to a generation more preoccupied with righting our sinking real estate investments than raising our consciousness. Feminism did a lot for women way back when, but it can’t clean up our current messes: quiet harassment, unexplained passing over for big jobs, Chris Matthews. We need to protect our hard-earned status and money, not clamor for more femaleness (check out this enlightening blog post from Eve Tahmincioglu on women in business and Hillary). Some months ago I heard Eleanor Smeal founder of Feminist Majority, the original feminist, say with exasperation to a panel, “we’ve been having this same discussion for 35 years!” and I thought, yeah, you have, maybe time to try a new topic? ‘Cause whatever you’re doing, it ain’t working as well as it should. Women still hold very few real positions of power. When I watched the election returns last night, there were no female big wigs at the anchor’s desk. Women still make 77 cents on a man’s dollar.

But when Iowa's outcome seemed determined to force Hillary's end, women (and men) thought, not so fast. At BlogHer.com over the past few days we have had incredible discussions about Hillary, and whether she deserves our vote. Many think she does, but not because she “cried” (that’s crying? Elisa Camahort said it: I get more teary watching some commercials), and not because Obama and Edwards “ganged up” on her at the debate Saturday night. Please, give us more credit than that.

I think many young women are coming around to Hillary because despite our hesitancy to re-join the Feminist Majority, we know it’s time. Oddly enough, I think it took a reminder from the godmother of feminism, Gloria Steinem, to wake us up. As (male) uber-blogger Markos put it: “You underestimate that sympathy at your own peril. If I found myself half-rooting for her given the crap that was being flung at her, is it any wonder that women turned out in droves to send a message that sexist double-standards were unacceptable?”

It’s time. Older women have understood that and overwhelmingly support Clinton, but younger women have been slower to support Hillary. I think, though, we are realizing that perhaps having a woman in the White House will let us breathe a little easier at work.
Rita Arens (age bucket: 30-39) put it best:

I'm voting for Hillary for the same reason I lost my virginity - holding onto it until I found the perfect guy was becoming such an elevated ideal that I was never going to find a guy perfect enough to deserve it, my purity, my lotus flower, my blooming womanhood. I was going to walk around forever, deeming every man I met not worthy, until I finally ruined myself of finding love anywhere, my expectations unrealistic. So I slept with the guy I was dating at the time. I got it over with. And then I moved on to the rest of my life.

This country needs to just go ahead and elect a woman already. It's time. We all know it's time, are itching to just GET IT OVER WITH, get a woman in office and put an end to the questions of whether or not her PMS is going to interfere with her foreign policy. Hey, I'm a woman, and I'm an emotional wreck, but I'm not the kind of woman who is going to run for public office. The kind of woman who runs for public office has big, brass balls of her own that she wears on a pearl strand around her neck. The kind of woman who runs for office stands next to her husband while he's talking about whether or not he had his dick sucked by an intern and then the next year runs for Senate. Folks, Hillary isn't going to break into tears over much. She's a female politician, and she's tough. Give her the job. Let's get this over with.

As godmother of feminism Gloria Steinem wrote yesterday,

Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

So, it’s time. We need Clinton to lead the way in Washington, and she needs us to win. It's a nice touch that Steinem, who represents original feminism, can come in now with a very timely call to action. Because even though the second wave feminist's message feels tired, they still speak the truth. All these years later.

I’m still waiting on more numbers, but if you’re a woman 30-39, please let me know if you’re pro Hillary, why, and if you think I’m full of crap.

from cnn.com
Clinton Obama
25-29 37% 35%
30-39 36% 43%
40-49 44% 33%

Gender: Obama enjoyed a 4:1 advantage among young men, and split women with Senator Clinton.