Women Hating Hillary
I got a friendly email from Anne M. over the weekend an invitation to chat about this article. I knew it would tick my off as soon as I read the headline: "Why Women Hate Hillary." The author, a book of whose I'd read for a WMST class in college, does a pitiful job conveying why Hillary just isn't good enough in all the right ways to please feminist boomers (like the author) who think it's important to fight for women's rights, but only while dressing appropriately--in skirts and flattering lipstick. Huh? Anne M. explains that the author is trying to say that she wants a new paradigm, that because Hillary plays today's political game she isn't worthy of women's votes. My response? WAKE UP. If you want a revolution, that's all well and good, but until you make it happen, we have a two-party system. If you want to attain your political objectives--whatever they may be--you have to WORK with that system. You know, I don't care if Hillary wears pant suits--she supports women in her policies! I also don't care if she spews moderate talking points--look at her record! She prioritizes the things I care about. And by the way, it's not very feminist to talk about how "women feel" and how "women think"--even if you're wearing lipstick while you do it.
Anne M., who brought the article to my attention, replies:
I think you misunderstood me and the author's point. It sounds like you thought I was defending the author when I was trying to explain her position. I don't support Hillary for completely different reasons than those the author discusses. What I understand the author is trying to say is that there's more to being a feminist or defending women's rights than being pro-choice. The author argues that challenging patriarchy is an important part of what feminism means to her (and other feminist she knows) and that's what Hillary is missing. I also disagree that she claims to be speaking for women in general. The article offers an explanation for why Hillary doesn't have massive support from women. I think that making statements about "many women," "women like me" and "people like my friends and me" in answering that question is perfectly fair.
A more thorough response to the article:
First of all, I think it’s inflammatory to use the term “hate” in this case. It’s one thing to say you “can’t stand” someone, but “hate” seems a bit overboard. Especially when the author claims that the sample of people who said they wouldn’t vote for Hillary in the presidential election also “hate” her. Moreover, the statistics she lists to support her broad-sweeping statement just aren’t that shocking. Half of adults wouldn’t vote for her? Fifty-two percent of women? Those statistics make complete sense—not only is half the country conservative, but a lot of the country wouldn't vote for ANY woman. The author says people find her cold (as they did Gore, by the way) and that ironically it is Gen Xers that give her the most support. (I have no idea why that’s ironic.)
The author says, again broadly, that women don’t trust Hillary because she’s an opportunist and they feel betrayed by her. Douglas has just described what it is to be a politician. Is Hillary a politician? Through and through. Do this author want a non-politician in the White House? I suppose she does. But it’s NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. It’s one thing to go on a diatribe about “hating” Hillary and your plan to not vote for her, but what are your options? Are you going to vote for a non-politician in 2008? Douglas will never find one. There isn’t one person in the group of 20 who have declared candidacy that isn’t a politician. The author clearly holds Hillary to a higher standard, and that’s not surprising. However she’s applying her theories and philosophies of feminism and government to a reality that doesn’t incorporate those. As one who has studied these theories in both undergrad and grad school, and as one who has seen crude versions of them unsuccessfully play out in the women’s movement and our federal government, to me this article may as well be about La-La Land.
The author explains that to her and her fellow Boomers, feminism means “challenging patriarchy: trying to bring equity to family life, humanizing the workplace, prioritizing women’s issues in politics, and confronting the dangers of militarism and imperialism.” With the exception of the last tenet (the author considers Hillary a hawk), I can think of examples from Hillary’s life where she has worked toward all of the rest. Douglas then describes Hillary in this way: “She seems above us, exempting herself from compromises women have to make every day, while, at the same time, leaving some of the basic tenets of feminism in the dust.” Wow. The author is SO off on this one. The country has witnessed many huge compromises—and I’ll go ahead and say sacrifices—that Hillary has made over the years as First Lady of Arkansas and then as First Lady of the nation. From putting her law career on the backburner, to taking on her husband’s last name simply to quell protests, to facing the humiliation of a publicly unfaithful husband, she has compromised much and yet remained a strong, stoic female leader.
“Millions are desperate for a new vision and a new model of leadership,” states the author, and I don’t doubt she’s right. She also asks, “If it would be so revolutionary to have a female as president, why does she feel like the same old poll-driven opportunistic politician who seems to craft her positions accordingly?” It feels that way because that’s what Hillary is, to a great extent. And that’s also what every other major presidential candidate is, without question. Does this mean they don’t have personal values and priorities that they’ll defend once in office? I don’t think it does. Does this mean that, once elected, they won’t do something revolutionary? I don’t think it does. Even Bush has made revolutionary changes—though none that I agree with. He’s actually a great example of someone who ran for office one way and then ran the country a completely different way. I argue that just because a candidate follows the rules of the game while on the road to the presidency doesn’t mean she or he act with such caution once they get to the Oval Office.
“Women feel written off” by Hillary, the author claims. She doesn’t speak for me or any women I know, and if the author wants to use anecdotal evidence, I’ll use it right back. Douglas suggests Hillary should “run as a woman.” What does that MEAN? There is exactly zero precedent for how a woman “should” run as a major party candidate. Hillary is a brilliant, accomplished, compassionate, and experienced Democrat. Oh, and she’s also a woman. So if that’s not enough for Susan Douglas, too bad. It’s enough for me.
Adrienne V. says:
When I speak to Democrats who are "against" Hillary they primarily cite a lack of trust based on her "politician" exterior. When pushed by the same arguments you make (who are you going to vote for if not a politician!) they tend to fall back to the argument that "everyone" "hates" her so she's unelectable and we need to elect a Democrat in 2008 so... All of this is quickly followed by the caveat "I just don't like her." As a Hillary supporter, the repetition with which I'm faced with this half-baked argument is infuriating. This is a big moment in our country's history. We have a viable female candidate for president of the United States! If you plan to vote Democrat in '08, at least come up with a complete argument for writing Hillary off. My problem with Douglas' argument is that it's simply a not-so-well disguised "I just don't like her" argument. She attempts to ground her argument in Hillary's stance on Iraq and concludes with the argument that John Edwards or Barack Obama seem more ready to challenge deeply patriarchal institutions. This is the argument she needed to start with (and complete) for her English friend and her readers. If we are ever to elect a female president we have to raise the dialogue above the "i just don't like her" and/or "she's unelectable" arguments.