Women in the (White) House

[Cassandra]

Now, I'm loathe to bring politics into this lovely community (haha, I'm such a liar), but I wanted to gather your opinions about how gender and the perception of gender stereotypes is affecting the 2008 U.S. presidential election. (For those of you in our international community, how do you think this election will affect your homes? Who, out of the front runners both Republican and Democratic, would affect you most positively? Most negatively?)

Now, recently Gloria Steinem's published an article in the New York Times titled "Women Are Never Front-Runners." Steinem believes, very strongly, that Hillary Clinton deserves the vote of every woman in America solely on the basis that she is a woman.

In response, Feministing.com, a prominent feminist blog, has this to say:
"I don't have a feminist obligation to vote for Hillary Clinton, or donate money to her campaign, or show up at her rallies. My obligation is to support her right to compete on an equal playing field. To decry the disgusting amount of sexism she faces every day. (We've done so again and again and again.) And then to vote for another candidate if I feel he would make a better president. That, too, is a feminist act."

What do you ladies think? Is is our obligation as feminists to vote for Hillary Clinton due to her position of being the first possible woman in the White House?

(As another tangential aside, I have a crush on Bob Herbert for this article, which asks the question "With Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s win in New Hampshire, gender issues are suddenly in the news. Where has everybody been?" It's a fascinating read.)

[Gloria]

Hi Emily,
Oh yes Mighty Thatcher, she was a natural born leader, she never winced at the notion of starting a war, or would run from one either. She was a tough cookie, I remember Margrete Thatcher back when I was growing up, I will say this much Tony Blair doesen't come close in any way. He is much more a diplomat, just a different person there really is no comparison. Tony Blair seems as a man that just knows how to get his job done with out being told much. If anything Bush seems more intuned with Bush, Bush has a natural reflex if someone pokes at him, it's like your going to get hurt. There is very little room, for the debate mehanism to come into play. It will still be interesting to see what the results are going to be. I am still hoping for Hillary, even though it will not be easy for her to win. People need real solutions, they are hurting, and yet we are still somewhat in denial, that this is the case. It's ugly out there, the interest rates are falling, there is still a whole bunch of issues to deal with in Iraqu, the financial picture is really not good on many fronts. I am sure the analysts are aware of how much money goes under the table. I cannot believe how many white collar crimes are still reported, and then some other types of stories with regular people that some how sub-side to steal from the coampanies they work for. People like housewives, and husbands that know they are going to get hurt doing this kind of thing, they will need lawyers to fight for their cases. But it is going on, more than what it ever was when I was young.
The crest that society is riding on, is still pitched too high, and people are running on skins, that one little mistake and they fall casuality to rising interest rates, paying debt off has become the first concern for the new voter. The phones that people have, are cool and do great stuff, but the bill is high for many that are working low paying jobs, or in single family structures. Things that at one time were not so bad, like child care are now considered full paying jobs on many levels, the person who takes care of your child needs to earn enough money to pay bills, food, and some rent? It doesen't add up, the cost of living is also not in sync for many that work hard, but still cannot afford to move away from home. The cost of heating goes up, and yet not the salary, the gas is high, as long as we are at war, the market knows it is dependendent on foreign oil. So who has who over the barrel? The oil goes up, and so will the groceries, but we are not supposed to worry, are dollar is shrinking, and buying less. This is the cost of inflation, and all the while just 10-12 years ago, through out the Clinton administration, we were doing considerably better. But we did not have a war to support, the economy was just starting to reap the rewards of the previous administration which would have been Regans Presidency. I am hoping that this is somehow positive, we the American people need help with the high cost of medicaid, and dental. If you do not have a good job, you have nothing. Even coampanies that are supposed to be great coampanies to work for, are not always giving benefits or making their employees pay a share in their health care.

[elsie]

Geez it seems that we feminists are awfully generous to the mens ... maybe feminism should be re-termed "equal opportunism." B'c we're on a totally level playing field nowadays ... right? Since when did the prospect of having 1 imperfect female leader out of 44 make this a debate over a matriarachal/patriarchal society? Are we really under the illusion that men have had the stranglehold on power that they've had in this society b'c they've insisted on equal opportunity and fairness, and there just weren't enough qualified women to take part in decision-making? And if you do think we didn't have enough qualified women to choose from, now why was that? No, equal opportunity for women has been fought at every turn. No one *gave* us the right to vote .... no one *opened* the doors to higher education ... the oldest institutions of higher learning for women in this country were *founded* by women, at a time when they were only allowed entrance to *one* college. Need I go on?

Vote for whomever you want, but if you think there'll be a woman perfect enough in our lifetimes to get the popular vote ... w/the comments I've read here, on a feminist site ... dream on. If you're waiting for the male-controlled corporations in this country to endorse and groom a female candidate who will do their bidding .... then get ready for a Thatcherite ... most likely, Condoleeza Rice in '12. Wow, progress!

[Emily HW]

None of us are saying that she isn't qualified. Actually, very few of us have even said who we would vote for. This topic is about voting on a candidate because she's a woman, and most of us are saying that we wouldn't vote for her just because she is a woman and that is our feminist prerogative to do so. Nobody is perfect, even presidents. All you can do is believe that that person is right for the job, whether it be woman or man [or trans :-)].

Also, feminism, to me, is about *equality*. No, we are no where near equal yet, but, yes, I think feminism could be called "equal opportunism." What's wrong with that? I'm not a feminist because I hope to take over and make men be submissive to women. I'm a feminist because I believe that I have the right to the same opportunities, the same money, and the same prestige of a man. I believe that I have the same value, and I'm constantly in my everyday life trying to help others see that. However, I don't see how voting for a person based on their gender alone will make me any better or worse of a feminist.

There's a problem with both staunch Obama and Clinton supporters; although both are viable candidates and have voted (as I have mentioned in the past) almost 90% the same, both sides refuse to see the other having any worth. Just as people argue whether or not Obama is "black enough", we could argue on whether or not Clinton is "feminist enough." In the long run, what would be the point? Shouldn't we concentrate on the issues at hand? And, for the record, I'm with mouthyb. I'm rooting for the dream ticket, either way that it goes.

[elsie]

My point is that it's not about what makes us more or better or worse feminists. It's not about even about us as individual voters .... it's about admitting that we are not voting in an equal-opportunity society. We are not voting in a climate in which race and gender don't matter. So we at least should acknowledge that there is a *chance* that the info we've absorbed about these 2 candidates, for example, comes from highly-biased sources ... sources that use language, for instance, that might very well be unheard-of in 50 years, much as the gender role discourse of 50 years ago is laughable now. And if you don't think that such a frame of reference matters ... well then I don't really know what else to say.

[Emily HW]

Well, I understand it when you put it that way! Thanks. :-) However, I feel that a lot of us *are* voting based on voting and policy records which can't really be skewed. This is what makes the choice between the two so difficult! But, yes, the media portrayal of Hillary is very male-oriented, and we should look at *why* we feel a certain way about a candidate to see what could be motivating us towards any sort of equality.

I'm glad we could get on common ground! :-)

[elsie]

It seems that for some reason I'm not clued into ... getting qualified women to run, and then garnering support for those women, is not a priority of today's feminists. Not really sure what to make of that, since you can be sure that electing white males has been a clear priority up till now ... unless my eyes just deceive me when I look at the pres. portraits. Which is really too bad, since we women have made such almost unfathomable inroads in every other sector of society. I for one just don't see how we can achieve parity in a democracy w/out more than a token few female reps .... since democracy is supposed to be the ultimate representation/expression of the people. It stands to reason that the first few female candidates will just do the patriarchy's bidding .... but if we are to get past that, to a fairer society, then it seems to me, we must have a critical mass of female candidates and elections, sooner or later. With the double standards I see being imposed today, I don't see that happening soon.

[Gloria]

Hum, how we vote is complicated and crucial, I believe we are still standing by old traditional standards that men are able to be more in control. Stero types like women are emotional still stand. In many areas of politics, the sub-standard stero-types of women in adverse circumstances still is a haunting reflection of many things in society. Some might site poverty some might say just poor choices, in choosing to become subjective beings both in not being able to stand up against harder or more conservative attitudes. Many women today have a stiff upper lip, as fear of not being able to stand firm in many areas of the work place.
Some people deal with the consequences and make an effort to strive to do better, but it takes hard work. Some have a much more weaker constitution, the attitude can sound like, (shh, don't let anybody know). Why? Is there something wrong with having a quiet constitution. In my eyes, it is exactly the people that are somewhere in the middel and might I add, that number might alarm you. It is not easy when there are some that are more ego oriented than others. It takes many different minds to come to one point of view. If we had more of a communistic out look, some might actually do better, since what people are best suited to do can. But in a communist country there you go again, the Government is telling "YOU" to do something, versus a free country that allows people to go about and discover more or less who you are, and what your beliefs are. As you see, we have an extreme on any given day of people that agree with how the government is run, and others that are anything but. Where ever the line is drawn, you can rest assured of one thing, it keeps moving, both to the right and to the left.
I think it causes stress to both men and women, except those that are set in careers they are truly happy with. That helps greatly, again I would not stress to say, people with the means are more capable of making their dreams come true. That is alot to be accomplished.

[elsie]

Interesting point, Gloria. And it really begs the question: why do we now accept, even expect male leaders to show emotion, but remain so confused as a society about what female leaders should do? I mean these are not the days of FDR hiding his wheelchair to avoid showing "weakness" ... we have a president who emotes openly about his struggles w/addiction, who cries unpredictably, who talks about his love of God. It seems we've confidently made the leap to an Oprah-esque, tell-all society ... for men. In fact one of the biggest criticisms of Hillary Clinton is that she isn't more emotive when it comes to discussing her husband's affairs.

You know once upon a time ... that was called dignity, not airing one's dirty laundry, however you want to look at it, it would've been considered ladylike. There is simply no script for a man in a similar situation ... but you can be sure, we'd be calling the wandering wife a slut on the cuckolded husband's behalf. Turns out we haven't come such a long way, baby. If we ignore the ways in which this campaign illuminates persistent stereotypes and double standards, it'll be too bad.

It seems that when it comes to women leaders in the U.S. ... we want things both ways, and yet neither. We want a woman who would demonstrate righteous indignation publically about a personal matter ... but who would also demonstrate steely resolve under fire. We're somehow convinced that she can't do both ... yet show utter confidence in the ability of men to compartmentalize their private and personal lives.

[Gloria]

If my mom were alive today, she had that old fashioned stigma in many of her ideas and ideals. She couldn't be bothered by fancy words, she was sharp in the ways that it mattered, and when it came to men and women she was always clear about what men thought about. There was no question a conservative catholic women that she was, born during the Great Depression, one of her favorite quotes was, "A man pulls up his zipper, and the women is left to carry the burden" as she would put it. Another was "A man is a man". Today we strive to better educate our young people about sex, but the odd part is the instinct. THe movie that just recently came out "Juno" is about a fifeteen year old girl who finds her self pregnant. Besides the girl being able to be funny and upbeat about a terrible situation is great, but sex is a big piece of it. When people are hormonal and young and start getting involved with the business of being young and sexual it is really a losing position to take. The damage is allready done, no matter how early you start to discuss sex with young people, they mostly laugh and giggle and think the whole thing stinks.
Until, they are invited to a friends house...and the parents are gone for a couple of hours, and someone has brought along the bottle. At that point the age of sexual maturing is not far behind. People keep insisting that sex is something "we as a society" can reckon with. It takes like the title of a country western movie that I know of "True Grit" to keep to the vows of marraige. There are many more that decide to stray, due even amongst conservative types, that would render the "sin" or to modern "women" especially, due to the fact that they are usually the ones under the gun.
They are under the gun to act...again instinct is going to be big player here, and if it instinct it should be aware at a pretty young age. The leopard dosen't change it's spots. This is not something that people decide to change in mid-stream and think, heck "hes not paying attention to me, I'll show him". As men and women we still have a long ways to go in bridgeing the long gap between what a man will see as "harmless" to women, being the scapegoat, or the homewrecker. One way or another women are being short changed, because under their feminine nature they know they are mis-having, even though society especially with Hillary Clinton could look perfectly at her, and say "Why have you put up with Bills adulterous nature". But as women and people of a certain intelligence we also know that men are "hunters" and women are usually gathers.
If given adequate time, "usually when hell freezes over, men will admit to a dalliance". It bothers them terribly, why all the "guilt"? Did anyone think of the consequences before? Why? because we live in a male dominant society, that plays along with "the all male rule". Men cheating is nothing new, "it happens". It is displayed in movies, it is acceptable, I actually went to one of the college meetings on issues dealing with "The Sopranos". It botherd the daylights out of me, that they could picuture Tony coming home to Carmela after he was out with one of his girls, and that Carmela played the adorning wife. It is exactly depictions like that, that make it acceptable. But...now that women have a sense of adventure, and know "not to take it" and are fighting back, with their own dalliances, they are also fighting the "guilt" especially with children involved, children are very innocent and sense displeasure quickly in the home and especially with mom, dad is different.
It will take alot for men to reconcile with the fact, that yes indeed they are men, but that dosen't mean they have to act in ways that defile their own better judgement and show crass and low self esteem. A man that is worth his own salt, will not want to do to somebody what he would not want done to himself. Until that realization hits home, you are going to have a bloody under current that dosen't allow society to breath let alone deal with the fall out, and their is fall out. People still don't get how "intimacy" is one of the gifts we are given, if used squanderously we eventually have to look at our selves in the mirror, and when we don't like what we see, there is very little that can be done at that point except to live with our mistakes, and hope they are not serious. Women have it much harder to stay correct while so many influences are parading around.

[Marta Jespersen]

When I heard that Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton had decided to drop out of the presidential race I was astonished and frankly I was rather dissappointed. When I had first heard she was running I felt that it was an amazing step for women conglomerately and I was so proud of her for doing it. Politics are a difficult and competitive field in general but, for women it can be an even larger struggle since female politicians also have to contest with the stereotype of PMS and its supposed effects on the ability of women to make rational decisions. My husbands reaction to her dropping was "So, she finally figured out that politics isn't a game for girls to play. I've been counting the days...If she would've been elected she probably would have quit after only a few days just like that woman who ran for Prime Minister here (in Canada)..." I was so mad at him for that!
I'm fairly soft spoken when it comes to my husband but I told him that it's not a matter of whether or not it's a woman the big issue is people are concerned with being called a bigot either way. It's either you're anti-black or you're sexist when it came to the democratic preliminaries. She stepped down with grace and elegance something that we can't necessarily say that most male candidates would. It was, in my opinion, despite the initial dissappointment of her giving up a beautiful display of feminine eloquence vs. what some of her male counterparts have done when they've been run out of the race. I'm not sure how all of you felt about it but, I'd love to hear your opinion on her resignation. Also, if any of you are up-to-date with the reasons behind it I would love to know. Thanks

[Gloria]

Woudn't it be nice, if Barack Obama would select Hillary Clinton to be his running mate? I think it would, he seems like an extremely dedicated individual along with his lovely wife and two adorable children by his side. He seems to want to get us out of Iraqu, which is a great thing, we need to leave there, these people are going to either learn the hard way that democracy pays off. Even in the short end of things people need to follow rules. We have sacrificed so much and still don't know how far to go to continue to help these people make a democracy that people will respect.

Currently we have some considerable problems of our own, the floods in the mid-west???where is all the concern? The problem with illegal aliens, health care, gas, where do we start to recognize that we are up against some considerable problems, our country is losing ground in being a manufacturer of goods, and services. Our services are being out sourced, this should be illegal. We need the jobs, people are having enough problems paying expenses, and yet we feel that it is less operating costs, but for the big wigs, it's okay to go buy new things and expensive things at the cost of other innocent people? I don't think so, but today you have a new mentality of entitlement, but something somewhere has to give.