Why this Diva can’t get on board the Hillary bandwagon
Posted by: Donna
Greetings fellow Divas, Divas-in-training, and Diva-keteers!
I’ve been struggling over what to say about this for a long time, particularly when it comes to my female friends who tell me they are in the Clinton camp mostly because it’s an historic opportunity to elect our first female head of state. The problem for me is that while I do see her election as a step forward for women to a certain extent, I think that my friends are greatly overestimating the impact of a Hillary Clinton presidency, in and of itself, toward the end of advancing the cause of women.
My unease was intensified when I read Gloria Steinem’s recent op-ed (which Pam posted a few threads down). Steinem is a hero of mine and possibly one of the most astute critics of Western society alive today. I understood where she was coming from when she desribed the difficulties women still face when aspiring to leadership roles. I see what she’s getting at with her hypothetical construct of a female Barack Obama at the beginning. But Steinem’s overall argument left me cold. It baffles me that she is willing to overlook some pretty glaring truths about Hillary Clinton in her quest to fit her into the compellingly feminist narrative she’s trying to create in her endorsement.
One striking example of this is when Steinem claimed that Sen. Clinton had “…no masculinity to prove…” Are ya kiddin’ me, Glo? What do you call her Iraq war vote and her recent Kyl-Lieberman one? Were you asleep during Margaret Thatcher’s reign? Any woman who operates in a male-dominated milleu can tell you that there is often an implicit expectation of proving you are every bit as “tough” as a man, and that many women act on it. That is exactly what Hillary is doing when she casts those war votes and refuses to apologize for them, when she panders to the neo-cons. Besides, the assumption that a female leader will be less bellicose than a male not only smacks of essentialism but is patently absurd. Condoleeza Rice is a woman. Enough said.
But hey, even feminist icons get it wrong sometimes and I still worship the ground Steinem walks on. The last time I can remember her being this off base was when she wrote that book about how Saddam Hussein acted like he did because he had low self esteem.
The other problem I have with Steinem’s thesis, and the heartfelt beliefs of my Hillary friends, has to do with the N word. No, not that one, I mean nepotism. See, on the one hand I’m loathe to come down hard on Hillary for that because political dynasties are commonplace throughout world history and men have certainly shown themselves to be willing to trade on their family name at various times here in America. I mean, you don’t hear people complaining about how that Bobby Kennedy fellow rode his dead brother’s coattails back in ‘68, do you?
When it comes down to it though, and much as I hate to say it, I find myself agreeing with Maureen Dowd, who criticized Clinton for what she called “nepotism disguised as feminism” in a scathing broadside. (That said, Dowd is a nasty piece of work and why she continues to rake in large sums of money for churning out her fatuous self-serving drivel is beyond me. Is there really a need for the Mean Girl constituency to be represented on the op-ed page? I think not.) But she’s right this one time and I am troubled by Hillary Clinton’s route to frontrunner status, and it’s precisely because I’m a feminist. Nepotism is inherently and inextricably patriarchal. This is compounded by the fact that Hillary accessed her power through that most patriarchal of institutions, marriage. For that reason, I can’t see how her being President will not do more to reinforce the status quo rather than be a step toward eradicating it. I have every confidence she will make a fine and capable President but it will never be a feminist act to me. It feels more like a coronation.
Of course, I’m looking at it through a Gen X lens. At age 39 I’ve got plenty of time to see a woman president in my life. My boyfriend’s 88 year old mom probably sees it differently.
For some fascinating insights about the intersection of gender, race, and generational issues around Clinton and Obama, and a glimpse into why thoughtful feminists disagree on them, I strongly recommend watching this discussion between Steinem and Melissa Harris-Lacewell on Democracy Now. http://i2.democracynow.org/2008/1/14/race_and_gender_in_presidential_politics
Happy debate-watching, all.
Donna
5 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
Great post. You said all of things I was thinking, but could not quite formulate. I guess I can throw away my completed post…
Because she’s married she loses her qualification as a feminist???
Katie, I can’t understand where you are getting that idea from what I wrote. All I can say is that I still consider Gloria Steinem to be a feminist icon, despite her having gotten married recently.
I don’t appreciate the suggestion that I should lose MY feminist cred for not obligingly supporting Clinton, which is exactly what Steinem is doing in her op-ed.
I wasn’t referring to Steinem losing her cred, but Hillary, as you imply she got where she is through the patriarchal institution of marraige. I didn’t read Steinem’s article the same way you did, and I still think you’re a feminist even if you don’t like Hillary.
Thanks Katie. Actually, no woman is less of a feminist for being married or for any other life choice. My post was not about Hillary personally, it is about the suggestion that the mere *act* of electing a (very famous and incredibly privileged and white) woman President strikes a major blow for feminism, because “women are never frontrunners”. We’re supposed to conveniently ignore that Hillary HAS been the frontrunner for quite some time now and how she arrived at that position.
That’s only one of several reasons that I found Steinem’s essay offensive, and wrong.