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.)

[Aphie]

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

OR, it could be that this is the generation who proudly label themselves "MILF"s and say things like "I'm not a feminists but..."
Most women my own age and younger drive me absolutely batty with their lack of social and historical awareness.

[Justine]

Here, here!! And let's talk to the pols and pundits out there while we're at it. Lesser minds might actually be swayed by these spin doctors who constantly "make news" off of blurbs. As in Obama's platform of "Change."

They theorize his next strategic moves based on this blurb, and discuss it's historic profoundness with "expert" after "I'm making a million dollars a year talking about all these blurbs as if they were grounded in reality..." types. One might start to believe it was truthful, if one were, like my husband, watching these smooth talkers night after night after night.

Let me be perfectly clear, there ain't no change in politics ladies and gentlemen.

In fact, this entire process on the Dems side has been nothing but good ole' fashioned Politics As Usual, where even an average housewife like myself could script the play-by-play strategy utilized by Obama and his team to strip what should have been known collectively as "Our Turn."

And no, I'm not talking about the voters having their voices NOW -try about three years back when he took a good look at those startling reports by political think tanks which documented in survey after poll after survey the lowest ratings and most negative feelings Republicans had of themselves since 1920. Yep, that's about when he decided to "throw his hat into the race" (as in, how many millions who vote republican will have to stay home to elect the first black president?...)

Meanwhile, Hill had told just about any Washington insider who would listen that she would be running shortly after 911.

Never forget: Women Unite. Take Back the Night.

[elsie]

Ooops, I wrote a reply and think it ended up in the welcome page? Sorry, not tech-savvy enough to fix!

[Emily HW]

I'm not seeing it on the welcome page? Where are you seeing it? You can copy and paste it in here and I'll try to figure out where it went.

Edited to add: I see it now. It's on your profile. You can copy it from there and add it onto here. Then, I can delete it from your page if you would like. I can't edit your posts, though.

[elsie]

Ummm ... OK. I'm not too clear on the copy 'n paste thing though. Will try to get at it later!

[Ammie]

I have a higher obligation as a citizen of the United States to vote for the person I feel can do the best job.

Just because I am a woman is not a reason to vote for Hillary. However, I applaud her, respect her, and support her right to run for president--along with any other qualified candidate. That's what being a feminist is for me. Comments like we should vote for Hillary if for no other reason than she is a woman is the kind of thing that gives people a bad perception of what feminism is.

To me its about equal rights, equal opportunities, and that includes being equally passed over on the basis of those qualifications and what will be best for this country as a whole.

[elsie]

OK ... and when we have half as many mediocre female presidents, as the male ones that the American people have freely elected, we will be on the road to equality. When the human, not potential, Obama starts falling off his pedestal, either in the course of the campaign or once in the Oval Office, we'll all be able to chat here about what could've been ... or what maybe will never be in our lifetimes. Think about it.

Think about the all-powerful effect a female president would have on the young people in this country and around the world. As a female college grad (though not the same as Hillary Clinton's) I can tell you that it's not coincidence that our first female Cabinet secretary, our current Labor Secretary (a right-winger, mind you), and countless other ceiling-breakers of all kinds are women's college grads. Perceptions of one's power and duty change dramatically when one has to compete and cooperate on a level playing field ... an Afro-American male prof. of mine said the same thing of his education at Morehouse. My point is, we are all seeing things thru the lens of double standards ... yet will argue till the ends of the earth that we're judging everyone purely on merit.

I don't know why we kid ourselves that we haven't held every female candidate to a higher standard. Let's face it ... a female contender of any kind must be pretty damn near perfect ... while Obama's drug experimentation, for instance, is a sign of character development. Guess we have our current pres. to thank for that changed standard. That in fact is a perfect example of how a leader's life history has lasting repercussions. Imagine for a moment if that life history included motherhood, a pioneering law career, a woman who believed her gifts of leadership should be put to their highest use.

Feminists who haven't fully pondered this enormity of the impact of this election on our hope for the future -- young people who need to not only put the best candidate in power but more importantly, *to realize their own power*, leave me puzzled. We're not talking about Elizabeth Dole or Kay Bailey Hutchison here. We're talking about someone with astonishingly similar positions and credentials to those of Obama's.

[Ammie]

I never said she wasn't just as qualified or that she didn't have a similar position to Obama's. But I will not place gender at the top of my list of priorities when choosing a president.

I didn't even say that I wasn't voting for Hillary Clinton.

What I said was that, for me, I will make my decision based on the candidates' qualifications and what I believe will be the best choice for this country. And while yes, having a woman in office would make history and send a positive message to the youth of this country and around the world--it is not the only criteria I take into account. It's not at the top of my list of priorities. It's only one factor I take into account and it is outweighed by a whole host of issues that I am continuing to evaluate and compare candidates on.

[mouthyb]

I think we aren't living in a post-feminist environment, I think we're living in an environment in which people interested in maintaining and increasing patriarchal privilege have been forced to re-phrase their attack in order to preserve the illusion of equality. I think they've done it by suggesting that any woman who looks closely at gender issues is being 'whiny' or 'needy', and by that re-summoning all the shaming of women that was true of previous decades (all requests of women that are not acceptable to a man are 'whiny'/ all complaints are 'whiny'.) After all, shouldn't we be ever-so-grateful for what's already been done? Since patriarchal systems benefit from exclusion, isolation, acceptance and a complicated system of social conditioning and reward for 'good behavior', a lot of women (in my perception), have learned, even subconsciously, that total independence comes at the price of men not helping period, whereas women who practice some form of compliance are rewarded by the approval of men, women and society, as manifested by comfort. This is not an indictment of what we all have in common, here at Feminist Housewives, but rather of the way that faint rights, based on the conditions that are already existing in someone's life, tend to be taken as proof of our rights, as women, having been already dealt with. I think it is disturbing, but very informative, to examine the areas in which we, as women, feel at harmony with society at large. I'm not knocking being comfy (I love to be comfortable) so much as reminding us that there is a system in place which is designed to be rewarding where it strips women of their rights.

Moreover, the experience of rights that many of the women I've talked to cite is not gender rights, it's class privilege; the women given economic room to go to college, with family support (including having family buy groceries or pay rent) tend to belong to certain class strata. Whenever we are forced to meet people, especially men, outside the people who know us, I think we are quickly reminded of sexism. They do not perceive a direct threat to their rights because they are insulated by a class or race grouping that does not force them to compete in the same way that women from other classes or women of color tend to have to and then they generalize from experience to the rights of all women, something I am doing here myself. It's just a different set of experiences, but as women have been uniquely situated to comment on the ways men enact patriarchy, so then can a poor woman comment on the ways that her class and other classes interact in the areas that she shares with other women. Alas, I am not qualified to speak on race, other than my own whiteness, so I should only make the general observation that race does change that experience even more.

Notice I said 'tend,' as in class tends to insulate and behave a certain way. Class and gender (as well as race) are utterly different sets of conditions, and when the one is conflated with the other, it tends to result in problems for both.

As far as Clinton, I remind everyone that a woman has not been in that office and that it is difficult to make a case for actual rights in the absence of examples. Feel free to count how many times she's referred to as some kind of party hostess, as manipulative or cold, as a bitch, as a unit of her husband or reminded that he cheated on her because he found her boring (because she wouldn't comply.) I assure you, if anyone believes they are, in fact, gender blind, the rest of the country ain't. Moreover, as I noted earlier, being 'gender-blind' or 'race-blind' only creates what it sounds like it does: blindness to the unique conditions associated with being male or female or of color in the US. Perhaps we can find ourselves comfortable enough as a group to say we're now going to be blind to the issue, but I'd bet money we notice that Clinton is a woman, Obama is black and that references to the previous are being effectively used to discredit them.

As far as voting records go, I get a nice summary from www.votesmart.org , which I enjoin everyone to check their candidate at, and I have watched a few speeches and responded as I felt was necessary to them.

For the record, noticing those differences does not make them have to compete to be noticed, acknowleged and actionable. I would love to see Clinton and Obama on the same ticket, and not just because they are members of classes that have been systematically stripped of their rights (because I have no doubt, for either candidate, that they have come up close and personal with patriarchy, racism and class problems. Though I think they do not react as I might have, I have high hopes that those oppressive moments have so colored their view that they are interested in dismantling or damaging the social structures which continue to damage them and people like them. I'm bloody well banking on it. Although no experience is global, there is a system that subjects people to terrible behavior based on their race, gender or class that must be fairly continuously combated, which does not mean man-hating or man-bashing. To reprove someone is not proof that you dislike them; it's more frequently proof that you care, if not about them, then about a general quality of life. Unless you're being shitty about it. I thin most people know the difference.)

With the way both Clinton and Obama have been campaigning, I doubt there will be a united ticket. I think we can all agree that we wish to look at the records and background of these candidates as a deciding factor (if not the only, depending on the person), which I am fine with. But as Elsie has pointed out, it is important to remember that women are held to a more difficult standard of excellence, and I would hate to see Clinton lose because of the sexism that we are force fed in order to ensure our compliance in what could be an excellent time for women and people of color (because, even if it's just me, I'm going to love the hell out of a pres that is not an old white man who has never had opportunity nor interest in questioning their privilege. Exceptions granted to presidents who have behaved like they had a clue.)

[elsie]

If you still doubt that there is a double standard or that racism and sexism are front and center in this election ... consider what the intelligentsia have to say. Andrew Sullivan in Dec. cover story "Why Obama Matters" in The Atlantic:

"What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial -- it's central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is tw0-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West's advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.

Consider this hypothetical. It's November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man -- Barack Hussein Obama -- is the new face of America. In one simple image, America's soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama's face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."

So there you have it. It's just kind of hard to buy all the comments about how everyone doesn't give a whit about race and gender, just wants the most qualified candidate ... who on the Dem. side, is clearly Clinton, when this kind of crap permeates the media ... seemingly without irony. When I first read it, I thought it was a joke ... "First and foremost ...?" I mean it seems that 50.7% of our population can't begin to compete. We apparently should elect presidents b'c of how they might appear to someone halfway across the world when HE watches a television set.

No matter what happens to Clinton in this election, I think we owe it to our dialogue as feminists to acknowledge that these kinds of comments have no legitimate place in the U.S. in 2008.

[Gloria]

I am delighted to report that yesterday I went to a meeting at my local librairy for "League of Womens Voters". This was a first effort of sorts, as I start to understand just how intricate change can be. It is difficult to describe how the "Womens Liberation Movement" has changed over the years. As more women have taken to the work force, and have rasied children from various ethics, what is important first. If that women has the "work" encrypted mentality that you see much of , they do not care what it is that they do, as long as it produces income. THey are not concerned that it is miniumwage job, some other women would be more committed to getting a piece of paper that supposedly allows them to a "better" job. Good Luck, it seems at times trying to put togther a field to track what works for who, never mind, "the what dosen't work".
Which of course would just intrigue me, why you ask, well because I am one of those mothers on the back burners, who never gave up my dreams or desires. Angering some, as that I should know better, some of the newer generation would be happy to boo and gnaw at my endless indignity that I would have the utter hutzpah to go on. But I do, because I refuse to belive that there are no beliefs, I want to write that is a very true goal for me. I know that I can write, but what I find my self most passionate about is "women" and yes "men" to a point because they have it hard in many ways as well. You can go through a whole myraid of stero-types about males, if they have more testerone, if they were raised by single family homes. If they were raised by fathers as opposed by mothers, but ultimately men have not thought many things through. Women are given to a psyche' of post women beings, in thier minds eye, before they even seriously begin to nurture thier own feminity and discover what that is about, there is alot of anticipation geared towards figuring out the "sexuality thing". And at that point the brain is no longer able to concentrate on "self".
The brain is now like a free wheel speeding down the track of life, wondering "when, if, how, will he call" to some extent a male might experience the same crazy hormones, but nobody is taking time to figure out, "how will this play out"? What are my expectations? These little synopsis are just brief introductions into how we play as young childeren, young people, and then expand into our own personal experiences.
Many young girls and guys have experienced thier first crush at this point, and been given some information on sex, some better than others. In the home I came from, I was not given any discussion, it was taboo...I found out where babies come from by a girl down the block whos mother was a nurse. It was pretty schocking when I did actually discover that. But besides all that what leads us down that road, of experimentation with out understanding all that is implyed? all that is at steak? For guys, that road of experimentation is like a game a haze of sorts as I think back to what my growing up years were like, pure experimentation at best. If someone had to ask "did I know what I was doing"? I would have to answere No. I did not get the emotional bond that comes when having sex, most don't especially at those first early years. The preteen years when everything is just so new, experience is all that life is and has to offer, you are not thinking consequences, right versus wrong, good versus bad, until later on...then as people unfold and look and say "where am I" it is definitely eye opening to look and now have children, lost lovers, hurt and life staring openly at you, with either choices you have made, or have been made for you.
So, it is not just a question of women it is a question of men, and how to help both parties avoid situations that will prevent them from growing up faster than what is needed based on individual analysis of each specific person. It varies, people have many interests, that sometimes are childish, "why" because a certain part of thier brain is not grown up just yet. They may handle responsibitys but still be immature. It has been known for years that males take longer to mature, while girs are able to act to a certain extent as mature beings, for a short duration, males are still trying to tie thier shoes. Dosen't mean that men are dumb, but it does mean that the male DNA is taking longer to make concrete examples that will help that man be a man in real life. Most males on tests fail, because words and logic are not something the male looks to make a strong impression with, but males do typicaly get the contents of what they are reading, because thier brains are less associated with the squanderous natures of females and females wiles.
As a society we are now forcing our daughters to be more forceful, more aggressive, more tough whether it is done casually, or by media, or by constant focus of culture it is very hard to ignore. But is that what women are? No, I don't think so, women are consistent beings who share an intellect and share thier ability to comfort and add reasonable respect to a society. Today though you have very little social conscious that is another point I would like to address. I think there are alot of areas in society that have benefited from the womens movement, but not in the ways that it seems to matter much. You have some women that are naturally tough, then you have women that pointed and narrow attitude, and then you have women that really want to be housewives and mothers to thier children and are great in those capacitys. So why are we still trying to figure out what has happened to the Womens Movement? If men do not come along on this Movement, there is no movement because we truly rely on each other. If men are not aware of the plight of women, the men that abuse will never stop, the men who impregnate women will never stop, true women carry the weight or burden on thier shoulders, but if that argument is true then what part of it is true for the male? Does it imply the male does not shoulder the weight of a child? There is much scientific evidence that points in both directions, but with questions like that..it should be noted that a society that has even small percentages of "ooops pregnancys" is still at risk, because the numbers are staggering. So what are the answers to those mis-judged pregancys, who must now act somewhat responsibily? Those are the specific people I am looking to target and say how do we help them? When that guy leaves, and decides he will pay some type of child support, and now that young women has to go out into the world, knowing that no matter what, not only does she have a child to support, but she has another mans child, "think it dosen't matter" "Think Madame Butterfly" it matters, because of all the step families that are around, and they are plentiful think of the challenge that they will face, relatives that may be less than approving, less than excited that they will have to accept a child or children that are not "thiers". We still have a ways to go, before the playing field is level for all...not just for a select few that have thier families support, there are many that don't. Due to ignorance, alcohol, drugs, jail, and other types of distractions that have swerved in front of thier road on the way to life.

[Emily]

Being British we have had our first women leader in Margret Thatcher. Although I didn't agree with her policies it did make me happy that women can achieve and lose their feminine side. She was a hard women but a women none the less hand bag always in tow.

Just because she was a women there was no obligation to vote for her, that would be blind faith in women kind and voting just because they are women which defeats the idea democracy. I do not want a matriarchal society more than a patriarchal one. I believe in equality.

I do hope that America does have a female president eventually but as long as its the right person for the job.