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.)

[Emily HW]

Hm... I didn't see it as her saying we had a feminist obligation; more that SHE was supporting Hillary Clinton and why she was. However, what Feministing said was powerful, and I feel that it's a great quote. :-)

I am getting a bit irritated at the Clinton/Obama wars. I've been a rabid fan before, of good ol' Dean (I'm sure there are others here as well), but I never sunk to the mudslinging that the supporters are now. It seems that time and time again, each side is making things up or twisting words, despite the fact that the candidates themselves express respect for one another and ask for the "war" to stop.

But, back to the feminist thing: I believe that they are all feminist candidates... What does gender actually have to do with it?

[Chrissie]

I think it is a wonderful and progressive thing that a woman has come this far in a presidential election in the United States. Sadly, this woman is Hilary Clinton. I wish that it was as simple as giving her my vote because she is a woman but alas my political sensibilities say "absolutely not!" It isn't that her beliefs/stratagem are against my thinking, it is simply the fact that she doesn't seem like "presidential material". A president should have a feel to them, a power that makes people listen to them and respect them. In my opinion Hilary Clinton does not possess this nor does Barack Obama. When I vote for a canidate I want to feel confident that I made the "right" choice, not which one is the lesser bumblehead.

[Marta Jespersen]

The thing about the idea of women being capable of pursuing the same careers as men still hasn't caught on fully. I recently did a presentation on Mary Wollstonecraft for a seminar and I think the thing that almost everyone has missed is that feminism isn't necessarily about being able to do everything that men are able to do but rather it is about being able to rationalize and be the types of moral agents which a knowledge of history, literature, and sciences allows us to be. Unfortunately, politics--modern that is--does not rely on morality and whether or not the actual position of the candidates sits with your personal beliefs and what you feel, as a free citizen ,is important. Politics are laden with 'dirty' tactics and if Ms. Wollstonecraft were to witness this she would be apauled to see that a woman who has the same level of education and has been given the opportunity to be a moral agent of the highest degree has decided to be 'one of the boys'. That is she has thrown this opportunity away and has tainted all that feminism stands for...that is feminism which reflects what makes the female of the human species superior to the male. In Christine de Pizan's words women are virtuous by nature and it is one's virtue which determines if they are superior or inferior to their counterparts. As for an obligation to vote for a woman? Heck no, if she doesn't stand for my beliefs then I'll vote for the candidate who does! Whether or not they've had DUI's in the past.

[Erin C]

I was wondering when the Clinton question would come up. Personally, I think her campaign is a great start for a more equal political system. As far as this election goes, I again champion a person's right to choose. I tend to believe that the left wing is more feminist than the right, but I don't really trust either. I don't know about you, but I will be much happier when the majority of politicians look and talk like the majority of American citizens.

- Erin C.

[mouthyb]

I don't know. I hear an awful lot of 'let's level the playing field by ignoring gender' coming from groups whose interest lies in making sure that we ignore gender for qualifications which traditionally get assigned to men. Part of the reason we're hearing so many questions about competence and emotional control (while they are obvious red flags for gender discrimination) is precisely because we receive a lot of conditioning in associating those qualities with men and male undertakings, even now. So even though we're 'choosing to think of it in terms of competence instead of gender', two things are happening. It's still often a matter of gender, in that a lot of women are trying to ignore it and go for other things (like record; which is good, except for the fact that the qualities we're looking at are absolutely colored by gender) and that the people who are easiest to associate with the 'fair,' 'non-partisan' qualities we're being noble enough to consider are still guys. It isn't supposed to be so, but it is still happening. While I'm not super fond of some of the things Clinton has voted for and has said about Obama (what an incredibly stupid choice), I worry that the rush to be fair is covering up assumptions that are still being made about gender. I've had a few female bosses, and even though I know better, I still had problems thinking of her requests as 'shewish' or 'bitchy,' exactly what Clinton is being accused of by people who have probably spent less time trying to be fair by ignoring gender (which is impossible and a misleading form of equality besides) than I have.

I guess what I'm saying is be careful not to be manipulated into a false sense of equality which, in effect, makes it a little less likely that another woman will get there. (Moreover, what other woman would have lasted so long and fought so hard to stay? If nothing else, I know she's a veteran.)

[elsie]

This is gonna come on strong, but what the hell ... I have been looking for a place to say this somewhere, and this seems like the right/time place.

I am a Hillary fan from waaaaaaaaay back. This in not an attack on Barack Obama, but more an analysis of some of the really yucky things I hear some of his supporters coming up w/these days. I won't bother w/conservative critics, b'c I take as a given that 90%+ of their gripes are rooted in misogyny and female self-loathing. The days of these childish ideas are numbered, as women now outpace men in every higher educational field, barely a generation since most official forms of discrimination were dismantled. So it stands to reason that politics is the last frontier .... since it's always a decade or two behind what's going on in the real world.

Here's what I see about how this campaign is getting played out on gender lines. To me, Hillary Clinton represents every girl who did everything right, who played by the rules, stayed out of trouble, kept her nose clean, studied twice as hard as everyone else, and believed that the Am. dream was still accessible if she just worked hard enough. She's every straight-A student who always had the right answer and wasn't shy about it ... but we want our women "modest" and apparently, to shrug and deflect attention when they succeed. We're fine w/women staying at work till the wee hours and putting in their time ... but god forbid they expect the respect afforded other leaders. Highly-motivated helpmeets are fine ... but leaders? Oh no, that would be too .... power-hungry. Unlike all those modest male politicians out there whose power just fell in their laps, not b'c they grabbed it w/the psychological force of a battering ram.

In comes Obama to a country starved for beautiful turn of phrase or two ... he is an inspiring, almost transcendant speaker. Looks great, nice and trim, sounds promising. Doesn't remind anyone of the ballbusting, bitchy boss they've have had to answer to at one time or another (or mom?) and resent it b'c they were raised to believe "nice" women didn't relate to others that way.

Obama says nothing that anyone can argue w/ ... in short, he is vastly appealing, for frighteningly similar reasons to why so many conservatives find (found?) Bush appealing ... he makes them feel good. Hillary Clinton is too threatening.

I find it fascinating that so many Repubs. are saying they're nervous about their chances if Obama gets the nomination, but would delight in watching an easy trounce of Hillary Clinton. Democrats should ask themselves: is this a good thing, a sign that Obama can unite. or a sign that he will do little to upset conservative power, and in fact Hillary poses a far greater promise of change? Not surprisingly, I think the latter. I also think that Repubs. shouldn't underestimate Hillary Clinton quite so easily ... she won over her constituents in NY state, a feat once thought near-impossible. Also, she's in it to win it and didn't come this far to go down easily.

If Obama is nominated, it will only prove to me to that in the US today, being charming and charismatic and male still trounces being hardworking, qualified, and female.

[mouthyb]

I am beyond aggravated that we have two very likely candidates from groups which have never been allowed to assume those positions, and they are at war. Since when are there only enough rights for one group at a time to be able to have a high position?

This is both the scariest and the best election I've been around for, not that there have been that many of them, because a black man and a woman are in position to get the democratic nomination, but the way they're campaigning, you'd think both of them were afraid that the old white dude political mafia was going to wake up and refuse them.

I'm leaning toward Hilary for a few reasons, likely the ones everyone has heard. I think she is making more concrete promises, she has a record of progressive votes, she has been trying to reform health care, social welfare and spending for years, she actually shows up for a lot of progressive issues, in terms of votes (when Obama has not bothered to show up) and because, finally, as a woman who has worked with a lot of cantankerous men and women whose social programming in self-loathing has been so complete that they feel compelled to snipe any other woman to get ahead (I'm fighting that battle, myself), I recognize something in Hillary.

She's learned all about it. How could she not, having been the target of some of the congressional attacks I've heard, the target of everything from stupid redneck m-fers to white collar men who think she needs to know her place. If there's anything I'm confident Hillary has learned, it's endurance, and how to wait and patiently shape events to your message. I don't care if that's manipulative, something that men are at least as good at as women, and are 'supposed' to be. In the nineties, when she attempted to reform the health care system, everyone peed their shorts at the commie pinko threat. Well, guess what? A few years down the line, we understand that that reform is necessary. And in the mean time, she's been working on the SCHIP program (and it takes awhile to get bills through all those processes, especially since seeing her name will likely make conservative senators more likely to show up at a vote and mess with it.) I see Hillary as a woman who has given up everything for this country, not the least of which has been privacy and having a good name. I think those are exactly the qualities I want in a leader.

So yeah, I want her. I don't want Obama, because I haven't seen his mettle and I don't think that not knowing his mettle is equivalent to him being 'non-corrupted', whatever that means in an environment designed to favor whomever shows up to represent themselves to the representatives. I don't want Obama, because if there's anything I've seen, it's that when women are told to wait their turn, it means that someone is about to attack their rights. I don't want Obama because the Repubs are making a lot of noise about him. I don't want Obama because you cannot have 'a new chance' in an environment which tries to ignore or downplay the concerns and rights of half the people in the US for vague promises that this time it'll be different. I've heard that from boyfriends before. It is never a good sign.

[elsie]

Hear, hear. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I live in a state w/an Afro-American governor for whom I voted (not w/out some reservations) ... his female opponent tried the most desperate and nasty tactics at the last minute (Willie Horton stuff all over again), to her downfall. I'm not trying to make myself out to be color-blind ... but I honestly barely noticed that the guy wasn't white ... and I certainly wasn't even considering voting for his opponent b'c she's a woman ... didn't feel the slightest ambivalence. We've now had 2 crappy female governors in this state ... btdt. So I'm not out to populate gov't w/undeserving women candidates.

To me, Obama is a lightweight, and if he wins, I'll blame it on Bush's barbarization of the English language. If that overgrown teenager hadn't hurt our very ears and moral sensibilities w/his endless gaffes and narcissistic drivel, Obama would be judged on his merits as a candidate, not as a speaker. But that's what you get when you have an aggressively anti-intellectual posing as an arrogant, aw-shucks ranch-hand for 7 years .... people suddenly wake up and realize, "On second thought? I think I do actually want a leader who is smarter than me, and isn't afraid to demonstrate that."

That, and I am fiercely secular, and I do not care for Obama's preacher-like speaking ... however much it might stir me, b'c I have as much a soul starved for poetry as the next person. We need gov't to return to its work of policy-building and foreign diplomacy at the moment ... not heart-rendering but vague messages of hope and change. Or rather, I think gov't needs to do both, and it's hardly amateur hour when Hillary Clinton speaks, herself. I have heard her advocate as passionately for very non-glamourous issues in NY state, as anything Obama has put out there. And it's laden w/analysis, proposals, and a clarification of values. What more do you want? Someone to make you feel good? OK, let's have Hillary's first act as president, be to appoint Obama our official nat'l orator, and have network TV broadcast him once/month at 7pm on an current event. I think that's the perfect compromise.

Finally, my husband and I are working class people, so maybe that's why we don't have the automatic discomfort or sense of novelty w/having a leader of color or who is female. My husband works in retail ... one of the few fields that is truly accessible to all backgrounds. So his bosses, and the bosses above that, and the bosses above that, and the CEO, are disproportionately female or minority members, or both. The people who already make decisions that directly affect our lives, look like the Dem. presidential candidates. But I live in a "progressive" community where I get the uncomfortable feeling sometimes, people are out to make history w/their votes. Bad choice! Vote on issues and vote w/your gut ... but voting to make history, in my opinion, leads to putting people up on pedestals from which they are destined to fall. I would say the same for those on the right who want to vote for the first explicitly Christian leader who happens to be a politician (Huckabee). Beware those who wear their identities too much on their sleeves ... or the voters who elect them.

I'm pulling for the most qualified candidate who attacks the issues I care about most w/singleminded focus and intellectual heft ... and that is Hillary Clinton.

[elsie]

Here' are some questions:

Is it possible that the relative lack of young female support for Hillary Clinton, demonstrates we're truly post-feminist?

Or does it just seem downright odd that we could be a truly equal society, and have never had a leader who comes from a group that represents 50.7% of the population?

Why is this Obama's supposedly inspiring (basically crappy music video) "Yes We Can" on YouTube full of underweight twenty-something female celebrities w/outsized breasts falling out of their v-neck sweaters? Why are there only 2 hot guys in the video, and the rest are average-looking, talented musicians? Why are there no average-weight, average-anatomied averagely-clothed talented female musicians in it?

Is this the kind of "change" women have to look forward to? To have our most-recognized women in society continue to be unusually-endowed, prime-attractiveness twenty-somethings?

Why did I just hear someone advocate for Obama and his "lovely wife" Michelle (a Princeton and Harvard Law alum)? How can this person be considered progressive in 2008?

Things that make you go "hmmmm."

[Emily HW]

Is it possible that the relative lack of young female support for Hillary Clinton, demonstrates we're truly post-feminist?
No, I think it shows that we, as females, still have a choice. We aren't being forced into voting for one or the other, and I think that women are basing their choice on the research they have done on each candidate. I'm not one to listen to speeches and rallys. I look at a person's voting history and their stance on the issues. I'm color and sex blind; if I think a person will do a good job, I'll vote for them. It is my belief that this focus on gender and race is bringing us backwards as a country, not forwards.

Or does it just seem downright odd that we could be a truly equal society, and have never had a leader who comes from a group that represents 50.7% of the population?
Did you campaign for Elizabeth Dole as well? I think a lot of people who are making a stand for Hillary on the account that she is a "woman" didn't blink an eye when Elizabeth Dole ran for president. Yes, she is a republican, but does that make her any less of a woman?

Why is this Obama's supposedly inspiring (basically crappy music video) "Yes We Can" on YouTube full of underweight twenty-something female celebrities w/outsized breasts falling out of their v-neck sweaters? Why are there only 2 hot guys in the video, and the rest are average-looking, talented musicians? Why are there no average-weight, average-anatomied averagely-clothed talented female musicians in it?
Where is this lack of respect for other women coming from? "Outsized breasts"? As a woman with large breasts, I will tell you that the discrimination that we face from other women for something we had no choice in is absolutely disgraceful, and I will never allow that sort of disrespect to pass unnoticed in a conversation. Also, out of all the beautiful women and men in that film, I counted 2 V neck sweaters. And what is this about "average looking" males? I thought that every person in that video was gorgeous because they were singing from their heart, but as Ms. Rodham Clinton is beautiful when she speaks from hers. Sure, some of them might not be a 10 in the Hot or Not contests, but not all of the women would be either. However, what does that matter as long as they believe in a message of hope? I feel the same about the women and men who so desperately believe that Hillary Clinton is the hope for our country; they are standing up for what they feel is right, and that is what is important. However, I don't feel like militant campaigning and making others feel like less of people, of feminists, for the way that they vote is any way to share your message of hope. To me, it is a message of superiority.

Is this the kind of "change" women have to look forward to? To have our most-recognized women in society continue to be unusually-endowed, prime-attractiveness twenty-somethings?
I feel like I'm picking on you for what you wrote, and I'm not meaning to, but seriously? Well endowed? WHERE? Show me a curvy woman in show business who hasn't been told they are fat. As for age, well, Obama does attracted younger voters. It is my belief that if Kat Swift ran on the Dem ticket instead of the Green, she would attract the same sort of voters.

New post... it keeps cutting me off.

[Emily HW]

But, I'm getting away from myself here. It is my firm belief that, when voting, people should concentrate on the *issues,* not making history. For me, I concentrate on poverty, peace, and education. This is why I have always rooted for Edwards and Kucinich. These are things that Obama and Hillary care about as well, but Obama's obsession with burning food for fuel when we have a food shortage, along with Hillary's desire for more censorship (think of the children!), has made it harder for me to align myself to either candidate. However, who I support really doesn't matter. I just want to point out that I don't think it's fair to say anyone is less of a feminist just because they think that, out of all the candidates, that the female currently running supports issues that he or she does not agree with.

[Gloria]

Well after all that I have read here, I would like to add this, I have admired Hillary Clinton for awhile. I think she is truly rare, and has the ability to work hard, she is a determined person in her own right, and I believe that she has always had a strong desire to serve the public. That right there pretty much sums my belief up, I don't believe it easy to raise the publics conscious of seemingly simple things, like equal rights for equal pay, some people are able to carry off thier personality and go up like a ballon filled of air, others are more prone to worry what thier roles are in a society that dosen't allow, dosen't accept, dosen't approve of certain ideas, liberal or conservative. So we ask why? in asking why, we seek out our inner agenda very important.
Work can be a uplifting experience, it can also be one that is looked at with mixed blessings, not enough time for family, not enough money, no identity, it is not as easy to look at work from the point of view of a starving artist, different structure of ideas, and how does that fit into the societal pattern of "earning your keep" in comparison to having an internal dialouge that is tuned into an artistic pursuit? It happens and is much more common than may be expected. There are many of our young people that are just itching to be on television, they want to be featured on "America's Next Top Model", or "MTV" or some other project, but rest assured alot of Americans today want to be on television in one way or another.
We live in a society that wants intstant satisfaction, but we still turn to what is tried and true and conservative. So does Hillary Clinton's campaign detail how we are envisioning our feministic goals? or is Hillary able and capable to sway voters that her sense of strong leadership, and her experience and her ability to seem to connect people and services together on many different levels her real defining points?