Why Thirtysomething Women need Hillary Clinton, and Why She Needs Us
by 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.
Posted In
BlogHer Conferences
- Home
- About Us
- BlogHer Community
- Conferences
- BlogHer Network
- Special Offers
- Contact Us
Follow us on Twitter:
@blogher @bloghersupport @blogherdeals
Become a Facebook Fan
© Copyright 2009 BlogHer | Terms of Service
Comments
I don't think you're full of crap. HOWEVER...
The reason I'm on the fence about Hilary is that I fear she's actually an old school Republican. Hilary is certainly competent, smart, and tough as nails - all good qualities in a politician. Baseline requirements, really. But I don't (yet) trust that she leans far enough to the left for the likes of me. Obama keeps talking about all the change-y-ness, but his comes with across the aisle reconciliation with a right that's so far right I can't see them from here. So far, I'm still leaning towards Edwards because I feel like - note I said FEEL, so it's fuzzy, surely - he's the only one that truly represents my traditional Democratic values. And those would be old school Democratic values, not new school ones, which smell awfully Republican to me these days.
Also, I breached the wall between 30somethign and 40 a few years ago, so maybe she doesn't need me from the 40something demographic.
Nerd's Eye View
Smart Woman Not Voting for Clinton
As a 35 y.o. woman with a Ph.D., I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton. I have studied the woman suffrage movement and women's rights movement. What "Hillary" does in her campaigns (yes, I studied her NY Senate campaigns, too), is totally contrary to the ideas of women's progress in the following ways:
1.By a making gender/ sex a valid reason to vote for her she makes it a valid reason to vote against her. She is legitimizing sexist voting.
2. She devalues the call for change by limiting change to demographics. In the last debate she said being a woman is a change. If demographic change is change enough, all candidates are valid.
3. She is "conveniently" the "woman" candidate. She plays the "picked on" girl in debates so well it makes me sick. She did this in her first bid for the Senate and does it now. And, like saps, "we" fall for it every time. The "choked-up" moment was another example.
4. She plays the "wife of" card too often. Her 35 years of experience are largely counting her role as "wife of..." Being the wife of the President or wife of a Governor is not an indicator of leadership ability any more than being the wife of a surgeon is indicative of ability to perform surgery or the wife of a University President could run a University. How much of her 35 years of experience is ACTUAL experience?
Women who are seduced by the "she's a woman" argument or the "its time" appeal are committing the same sin they are trying to combat-- sexism in politics. Being a woman is not grounds for being denied a position, nor should it be grounds for being given a position. Listening critically to the candidates is essential. I cannot condone a woman says "I'm the girl for the job" no matter the job. I want a strong leader, not a child for president. A high profile woman who does not pay attention to the language she uses and the messages she sends is problematic for the progress of women.
TRV
"It's time", is not a reason to vote for
Clinton
UPDATED TO ADD: I had no idea my comment was going to be so long, so I'll try to edit it later.
fabooj
Gloria Steinem's NYT article was clearly directed to young, white females. Of privilege. She lives in a headspace that I could never occupy, would never want to occupy. Her arguments were specious at best and all I took away from the article was that her oppression was greater than my oppression. (I'm sorry...I should stop here and mention that I read the article yesterday and got pissed. As the day wore on, I was downright livid at Steinem's presumptions, assumptions and petty pitifulness.)
Also to fully appreciate Markos' comments, not only will have you to get at the relentless Hillary bashing that goes on at his site with him leading the charge, but you'll have to also share his history with females in the liberal blogosphere. I like Markos as a person, but he really screwed up and he has never apologized for his over-the-top misogynistic comments.
As a female, I would love to see a woman in the WH. Hey, I thought I'd be the first female president. And if I was just any woman, I'd probably even be happy to get in line with the sheeple and vote for Sen. Clinton. But I'm not.
Background: Not only have completely entrenched myself in politics since I was 8 (I'm 35 now), but I do have a very long political memory and more important (to me at least) I am a Black woman. I'm a fierce Democrat and I hold all Democrats to the same standard: Don't suck.
This all to say that, not only did I come to age with a Clinton in the WH, but I remember clearly the promises and the compromises. The fact is, that Sen. Clinton is using her time in the WH as part of her "experience". By that token, I'm a graphics guru because I work for my husband. It doesn't translate and considering her actual Not-Sleeping-With-Bill accomplishments, it's really pathetic to hear her tout '35 years of experince" when it's really more like 12 (and no, she has NOT distinguished herself in the Senate, regardless of what fairytale Bill Clinton wants to live in today). That is unless she's willing to release her WH papers, then we'll learn more. Who knows?
But let's take that experience at face value and ignore the fact that she's basically asking us to elect her to a 3rd term...When someone like Clinton wants something from me, my first (selfish) question is, "What have you done for me lately?" With Clinton (Bill or Hillary), it's "What have you done for me period?" Because every core supporter they could have had (Blacks and Gays specifically), they threw under the bus long ago to strengthen their insider ties. At least Bill could make you feel good while he screwed you over. His mantra was always, "Later...you're time will come later." Well, it's "later" and Sen. Clinton has most certainly picked up that refrain. What exactly are we waiting for? More backroom deals? More compromises that still leave many Americans with unequal rights?
Sigh...
I'm bemused by white liberals who decide that I should firmly support Clinton because some moron (and yes, Toni Morrison is a moron) said that "Bill Clinton is the first Black president". I'm saddened by Black people who decide that I should firmly support Clinton when her votes in the Senate and her husband's policies and "compromises" in the 90s did nothing but harm Black communities even further.
So, as I've been saying to my friends and family: Yes, I know America is ready for a female president. I'm just certain that it should not be Hillary Clinton.
"I am so perfect so divine so ethereal so surreal. I cannot be comprehended except by my permission. I mean...I...can fly like a bird in the sky." Ego Trippin' by Nikki Giovanni
Visit me at faboo mama
Please don't edit
This is awesome. Thank you!
PopConsumer
Beyond Help
Steinem's Piece Was a Joke
GENDER is the most restrictive force in America?
Then I guess she lives in a different America, because from where I am, RACE is, and always has been, THE most restrictive force.
WOmen got the vote after Black men.
Tell that to the members of my family.
I guess she just ignored that my father, grandfather, great-grandfather, though, by law in the Constitution HAD the right to vote after the Civil War, it was that silly thing called JIM CROW that prevented Blacks from having LEGALLY FULL CITIZENSHIP UNTIL 1964, which is, what, FORTY FIVE YEARS after women got the right to vote?
If my father hadn't of moved up north, that would have meant, that he would have been FORTY-FIVE YEARS OLD before his FULL CITIZENSHIP would have been honored....AFTER putting his life on the line and fighting for this country in WWII.
There are, what, 9 White Female Governors?
1 Black male Governor.
NEVER a Black Female Governor.
There are what, 15 White Female Senators.
1 Black Male Senator.
Only 1 Black Female Senator.
Who are the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action?
Sure in hell isn't Black folk..
Oh yeah, WHITE WOMEN.
Black women are only 'Sisters' when it's convenient. If not, our concerns are not addressed, like in that Steinem piece. Black women were INVISIBLE in that piece. She completely and deliberately ignores White Privilege - how convenient for her.
Bill Clinton is not, and never was the ' First Black President', and yes, I take it as an insult.
Hillary Clinton has gotten everything in her professional life because of who she was married to. Period. This vaunted 'experience' she throws around is because she leeched herself to Bill Clinton's coattails. I do not, and will never considered her time being married to Clinton while he was in the White House 'experience'. If that's the case, then sign me up for the Laura Bush for Governor of Texas Exploratory Committee.
Bang on
Especially that last graf...I've been banging that one since she threw her hat in the ring and tried to subtly relay it in my own post. Your post also echoes what I posted over at TalkLeft a couple of days ago after someone said it as "shocking to be reminded that Black men were given the right to vote before women":
And yes, people quoting that article generally fail to mention that Steinem's "we" most certainly does not include me. Part of my other post at TalkLeft:
But now that I've had time to think about it, the headline, if that was Steinem's premise, was and is wrong. Clinton was a frontrunner before Steinem wrote that article. She's kind of a frontrunner now. And there's still Feb. 5th coming up.
"I am so perfect so divine so ethereal so surreal. I cannot be comprehended except by my permission. I mean...I...can fly like a bird in the sky." Ego Trippin' by Nikki Giovanni
Visit me at faboo mama
Republican? Like, "Bush Cheney lite"?
Interesting- and that attack has been thrown on her. But her voting record (see: http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463) doesn't read Republican to me.
Not that flavor of Republican
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
There are a range of views...
and it is vital to recognise them as valid. Having been through the primary, having discussed this with people around me who voted, all of us carried conflicting feelings on the election.
For me, and Denise will attest to this, well... my beliefs are well left of Hillary. Making a choice based on my outlook on politics and life would most closely put me in Obama's camp... and it was damn tough to stand and choose between HIllary and Barack.
There are other considerations beyond political outlook... for me, the primary is most often a time to express who pushes my buttons, as with 2004, Carol Moseley Braun was my heartfelt candidate, and despite a withdrawal a short while before the primary, gave her my vote because it seemed important to show someone paid attention and found value in her positions and candidacy.
In 1984, a BBC reporter stopped me on the way out from voting. Lights forcing me to squint as I awaited his question, I reshaped into the persona of one annoyed as he rhetorically asked 'some would say (my vote for McGovern) was a wasted vote..." but that vote was cast from my ideological inner workings.
With that historical free form approach to the primary, why the change this year?
There is more at stake here.
IMO, the most telling reason why came after the election, today, at work.
My boss was sharing her voting story (posted in the NH thread.) Accompanied by her 4 year old, she inquired as to his candidate of choice, and was met with "McCain." That answer was quickly followed by a plea not to vote for Hillary "mommy, don't vote for a girl!"
A 4 year old, viewing this from his 4 year old world, already perceives embarrassment if a woman is in a position of authority. This is pretty interesting, because one would think in a 4 year old child's world, a mom is pretty much the ultimate authority. Already a lesson from patriarchy, learned from dad... women do not carry authority over men out there.
Hillary is qualified. My ideological preference for Obama is one of degree, not one of polar opposites. They both carry strengths, both carry weaknesses. In the grand scheme of things though, America is at heart a moderate nation, not too far left or right, and usually get pulled one way or the other by stronger circumstance, or cloaked ideology (as in 2000.)
Obama can run, and run well on abstracts, a reprise of my second-favourite politician ever, JFK. Hillary offers more tangible views that might also make her more acceptable in more conservative climes.
If someone like Blomberg runs, the Republican candidate will walk into the White House... and the thought of 4 or 8 years of Huckabee or Romney is quite troublesome. I don't think that happens with Hillary.
We shall see, and from this day forward, my fingers are crossed that Hillary or Obama comes away with the nomination, and with the presidency.
In this case, gender trumped ideology. With good reason.
Every time a Chris Matthews mentions 'emotional outburst,' Hillary takes one for us, carves a hole in the wall blocking our way. Someone has to go first. She chose to be the one, and being the first in knocking down walls is a hell of a task for anyone.
nelle
beliefs "well left of Hillary"
Can I just explain that for a second? RE aka Nelle's beliefs are far left of any candidate ever. She makes Kucinich look conservative.
OK back to the discussion.
;-)
~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager
Flamingo House Happenings
4 Year Olds Just Aren't that Sophisticated
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/)
It might be...
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
Ah...that makes alot more sense
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/)
Nelle, this is awesome.
All of it, but the last paragraph, especially. You got me. I totally agree.
Laurie
LaurieWrites
Morra is not full of crap
I'm 45 and there's a definite generational divide of some type when it comes to how women see women and power and leadership and needs. If I could reshape how we pull ourselves together, how we generalize about ourselves, as American women,I would start by updating the concept of "feminism" with an entirely new word, something that better represents a bigger tent, a bigger umbrella, to cover all our generations of women that live today. Something that cannot be misused and abused by the media. Something that can't be misused by people on any part of the political ideology continuum to taunt people on another part of the same continuum.
I'm not a big Markos fan (don't dislike him, just am not a groupie) but I am 100% behind this quote that Morra included and have said the same thing several times in the last few days:
Abso-effing-lutely as women aren't supposed to say.
Jill
Writes Like She Talks
I agree with Jill - Morra is not full of
crap.
Morra ROCKS!
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
also at CatherineBlogs.com and The Political Voices of Women
Not full of crap, but I disagree anyway
At least, right now. I might change my mind but it won't be because she's a woman and definitely won't be based on what I view as a record of compromise on key issues; in particular, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, some of her energy votes and votes on social issues. I am open to changing my mind on this, but for the moment, she comes across as a career politician who is willing to give up too much for too little.
Beyond that, she will face the same crap thrown at Bill Clinton during his Presidency. There's a reason that Karl Rove thinks Hillary would be a great Democratic candidate -- the swiftboaters are lathering at the gates even as I write. That may not be a reason not to vote for her, but frankly I'm tired of the "smear 'em' tactics and think there are probably skeletons waiting to be outed that we haven't seen yet, real or imagined.
But most of all, my decision won't be because she's a woman just like it won't be about Obama's race or Edwards' career as a trial lawyer. At the end of the day, one of them will convince me they can actually lead this country effectively and wisely, and that will be the one who gets my vote.
I'm really tired of the clarion call for women to support Hillary because 'this country is ready for a woman president.' Let her prove herself against some formidable competition and she'll get my vote because she's proven, not because she's female.
karoli (odd time signatures)
I think "it's time" suffices
but maybe it's also because, as Jill points out, we American women need a bigger tent to gather under, but we do need a new collective identity as women. Not as characters from a TV show, or body types, or rivals, or black women vs white women vs latina women.
And I think having a woman in the White House would help with that.
"The Moment" gaining steam as a conversation
piece
That's a good thing.
A few thoughts:
1. Women voting because they're angry at how another women is treated - whether or not they like that woman and whether or not that woman reacts to the treatment in a pre-planned way - is a passive aggressive way of saying, So there. DeeDee Myers talked about the "so there" vote this morning on MSNBC (though she didn't dub it a result of passive aggressive behavior, I am, lol).
2. As I listened to Myers talk about how, after the Sat. night debate, she had a feeling she couldn't finger and heard from other women that they felt it too and later realized it was a collective anger, I realized why no polls picked up the fact that 46% of the women who voted in NH as Dems (out of a total of 57% of Dem voters being women, according to Myers) voted for Hillary. Maybe it was because women didn't write or run those polls. Women are not even in charge enough in the media. So that when we're listening to and looking at all these pundits and predictions, who is making them? Not all, but often, men. That's one reason why Morra and Mary Katharine Ham's video was so excellent.
3. So when people write that gender doesn't matter or it shouldn't be this female, I caution people to reach back and just imagine what it might have been like and for those of us who know, what it is like and was like to have no women in certain positions.
4. Hillary is not my candidate - the three who are gone were. And now, I'm thrilled I'm in Ohio where my vote might not count. Yes, I mean that in this primary - this is a really, really, really difficult decision for some of us, though clearly not all of us. And frankly, I'm terrified of making the wrong choice. Luckily, I don't think any of the remaining frontrunners are bad choices, just different and which pros and cons of their own that differ from one another. And I will, of course vote in the primary.
5. Hillary is the catalyst this time around. But if you've seen the movie The Accused with Jodie Foster (she won an Oscar for it), you'll understand what I mean by saying that prosecutors don't get to choose the victim - they just prosecute the crime. If we want to change who our female torchbearers are - if we want torchbearers behind whom we can rally at all or more enthusiastically, we have to take action now to make sure that women we can support are in the pipeline - that's one reason I'm so involved with The White House Project's Go Run which is finally coming to Ohio.
To not want to vote for Hillary for many, many of the reasons folks are citing is fine. I understand that some people feel like others think everyone should vote for Hillary simply as a reward to Clinton for being the first woman to reach the spot she's in now. I doubt many people are honestly choosing her solely for her accomplishment, but sure - it's not really the way to pick your next president.
But can't we keep the reasons for not voting for her to why you don't think she could do the job the way you want it done separate from the reasons why her role in this election is going to make it easier for the next crop of women?
I hope we have women in the presidential race and every possible political race every single time. It must become routine, and I just can't agree to begrudge Clinton her role in that effort, like her or not. That doesn't mean I'm voting for her - I sure haven't thought I would for more than a year. But if it ends up that I do vote for her, it will be partly because I can. And I'm glad for that.
Jill
Writes Like She Talks
Not sure I understand...
...what you mean by this: "we do need a new collective identity as women. "
The Land of Moo
Co-Founder of Bloggers for Darfur
Not intruding (I hope)
While I'm neither a woman, nor 30-39, I can't bring myself to support Senator Clinton because of a few issues on her voting record and the impression she leaves me with that she's bought and paid for by corporate interests.
Jim Heivilin
It is getting annoying...
The Clinton slams seem more direct to me, the Obama racial slams seem a bit more veiled, either way I'm finding myself getting overly protective of both when I hear the banter.
I'm literally going issues by issue and comparing the two because I am that anal and that torn.
I fully admit my emotions keep getting in the way. I see someone slam Obama with a racial reference and I lose it and am voting for him. I see someone get on Clinton with a sexist comment and I switch to her.
Its really hard to totally detach myself emotionally from this being a "first."
Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain
I'd've voted for her in the 1990s
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
Suzanne - I respect your opinions and am
curious what you think.
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
Clean slates
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
Has Ms. Steinem underestimated her
achievements...
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
Indugle me a couple of more thoughts?
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
Women candidates are definitely important!
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
I think you're right, Suzanne
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
Half-way through
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