Courting Feminists

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, gender has little or no bearing, on its own, as a guarantee of moral or intellectual superiority. Of course there has been a long history of injustices done to women, but that doesn't mean they'd be better leaders than anyone else. Was Golda Meir a better leader because she was a woman? Indira Ghandi? Maggie Thatcher? I would dare say they were still subject to the common beliefs and misbeliefs of their time. I think this fascination with women in politics is simply because, with the possible exception of Shirley Chisholm or Geraldine Ferraro, there just haven't been any women who have previously broken through to the extent that Hillary Clinton has. She may be a woman, and her strengths and flaws may be affected by her gender, but she still has flaws, as does any public figure.

Wow this is disappointing Current! I'm sick of hearing this kinda stuff in the media. This is the kind of publicity that fuels the flames of stereotyping. This is no better then Al Sharpton.

F-

I didn't think it was uniformly against Hillary. There were some remarkable chapters about her early years. The truly damning parts were beyond the bounds of personal vendetta. Want to hear more? Maybe this is old news to "inside baseball" politicos, but there is still an unresolved question as to whether or not Hillary Clinton enriched herself while her husband was governor of Arkansas, by taking on legal clients that did business with Bill. Talk about a conflict of interest. Another timebomb in Bernstein's book (but one that is colored by the prism of bitter relationships) are the littany of Clinton friends that were burned by the Clintons during the veritable seige of investigations leveled against the Clinton White House. Most of the betrayals were laid at HRC's feet.

There is alot I agree with in jsburman. I am sure gender is not the only reason some voters object to her. However for some it is. Unrelated to that I would love to know, however if jsburman picked up any other books about Hillary Clinton? And why you picked up this one, which was on TV being discussed as harshly written against the canidate. I myself am big on source material. Do you choose books that may be harshly against all the hopefuls? Or any other presidential hopeful, from positive varying view points. Largely in source material.

An interesting range of opinions. First, the original premise offered by Tracy Clark-Floury is, at least to me, a superficial argument. One's gender would seem to have little bearing on one's positions on issues, whether the issues are so-called feminist issues or broader issues. I do think feminism is probably easier to grasp by women, though, since it does assume a certain level of oppression and discrimination suffered by women. But second, I think the real issue here is why so many likely voters have such strong opinions about Hillary Clinton. I would argue that it may not be just because she's a woman. I read Carl Bernstein's book "A Woman in Charge." Hillary's intelligence, at least to me, should not be the central issue in forming an opinion about her progressive impulses. The central characteristic that interests me is her ability to move an agenda, or in other words, build political cohesiveness around progressive issues and work effectively to advance them through the legislative process. This is the key question: has Hillary learned from her specific strategic mistakes in her 1994 healthcare campaign? Reading Bernstein, I think the answer would seem to be no. And the central reason why is her inclination to ruthlessly attack her opponents, within the party or without. Is this necessary in the world of "real politique"? Arguably it's a matter of degree. The earlier history is drawn quite sharply in the book. She does have a range of qualities that do recommend her as a presidential candidate, but ultimately her cautiousness on the war and her desire to cautiously stay in the "center" are less than inspiring.

I find alot of men cannot think of why women would choose Hilary for President, so they automatically assume it is because she is a woman. Now that is sexist. There are alot of things to recogmend her, things that have nothing to do with her gender, like her ability to remain civil while she is under fire. She shows class when many of the democratic candidates are hopeless mudslingers. Have you ever asked a man why he doesn't like Hilary? I have. And I almost never get an answer, the best I got was 'She's slick,' yeah right. If you ask me her problem is that she's not really slick at all. Just look at the debates, she comes out with details, she doesn't waffle and when she tries to waffle she fails miserably. Not very slick.
I believe alot of men are subconsciously threatened by Hilary. Which is absolutely silly. Women have dealt with a male congess that supports almost no female issues (top female issues health care, education, etc), that get voted in constantly with little to nothing to recogmend them for quite some time now except for the fact that other men support them. And yes when you are utterly disallusioned with politics the message doesn't really matter as much as the sender, because if you are disallusioned who believes the message? The proof that men are threatened comes in all shapes and sizes from bumper stickers to tshirts calling the woman a b*tch, c*nt, etc. Words that should never be alright to use in referance to women or anyone else. Yet these same words are suddenly justifiable because she is a political figure? I don't think so. That is not the reason. The reason they are being justified is fear. One, does any of you know her? Has she ever personally done you harm? I think people who hide behind these things are missing a vast majority of their own prejudices staring them in the face. It must suck for those men that suddenly find themselves where many women have been for a long time, totally disallusioned with everyone in washington and the only person to vote for... Another person who yet again doesn't impress.
But for all us people with hope, there are different issues. I agree with blue_blooded in one thing there are better things to be discussing. I personally WON'T BE CONSIDERING ANY of the DEMOCRATic candidates, especially Barack Obama who will have us out of Iraq in a few months (we literally could not move all the equipement back in that time period even if people worked day and night over there. He is very unrealistic.). Also, we should be discussing and admitting that YES WE HAVE PAINTED OURSELVES IN A CORNER, but leaving a bunch of Kurds behind to get massacured like we did in the 80s is not an answer. Genocide is not an answer. Yes, Obama wants to end genocide in Darfur, that's great, but if we leave the sunnis, shiites, and kurds alone while they are split we will be the cause of genocide. Lets solve one at a time. Yeah, we screwed up. But you don't just runaway from your problems, you stay and like any adult you fix them. And like any adult you hate every painful second of it. This to me is why I think most of the democrat's running would loose the final election because most American's don't want to run away, as witnessed by the fact that the democrat think tank has not been calling to 'get us out' as loudly lately. Instead imigration, magically turns out to be a media hot point whereas before it could barely get a page in the newspaper. Isn't it wonderful how the media is either democrat or republican? Especially for a swing vote person?!

On another note, can we all pitch in and raise money for Salon to buy a real microphone, and score their pieces with more topic-appropriate music (I mean, I love clubbing as much as the next guy, or girl, but is that honestly the best fit for this piece)?

anyone who thinks that sex, race, religion, or even the way their name sounds is the deciding factor in who you vote for... please, for the sake of the world, stay home election night.

To say that simply by virtue of being a woman someone would further feminist issues, is asinine. One only has to look to Ann Coulter (who laments a women's right to vote http://www.observer.com/2007/coulter-culture )
to put that idea to rest.
To be fair, though, it is a welcome sign of progress that we are even having the conversation on the eve of a presidential election that will probably see a woman as a candidate. It is important that our leadership structure includes women in a truly representative way, even though we are far from true representation.
The main thing that upsets me about this question, though, is that it seems to relate to the trend in the media to re-frame issues about gender equality away from a substantive discussion. I'm no expert on feminist thought, but I can't say that in my exposure to it I've frequently seen the argument that people should be put in positions of power based on their gender. Quiet the opposite.
It seems like we need to be focused on how we address more crucial issues. How do we reduce the wage gap? How do we address the misogyny and violence against women that seem to continually plague our society? The answers to these questions seems to me to be a better measure to evaluate our leaders by.

A matriarch was a way of the past long forgotten by most.Yet today in many households, women keep it together, but the man is still the face of stability and strength. I don't believe one gender or the other is the key to leadership. A stable couple with many years of experience together might be our leadership ticket. Both genders have equal gifts to put on the table. When defining a leader we should look at both our candidates and their signifigant others. In short, a long standing couple might be our best bet . We saw the "Clinton" period. So if you liked his leadership skills, the woman he had most intimately with him, has also learned the the pressures and demands of being a president. That could be great back up. (If you were for him.) It's up to us!

a vagina or a penis will not make you a better President. it's sad to hear the person Ms. Clark-Flory got feedback from talking about voting for Hillary because she's a woman and "historically under-represented groups" need to have equality and blah blah blah. Sweet Buddha did everybody hear that? what if she was a fascist? what if she was a dictator? gender, race, religion, etc. etc. absolutely DO NOT and should not matter in an election. we need to look at where the candidates stand on the issues. that's it. and by the way, we need to stop thinking of rights in "groups". this is what causes and perpetuates the actual prejudice. if we put aside the group mentality and focused instead on individual rights we could solve a lot of problems.

@VoyagerFilms: Uh, that "marketing" story is nonsense. And for anyone to say neither race nor gender makes a difference is, at best, naive. All of us have absorbed a world awash in bigotry (misogyny, racism, homophobia, antisemitism etc.). None of us are immune.

As a son of a feminist, my parents raised me to believe that it means holding true to the *fact* that women and girls are *human beings* and, thus, entitled to human rights and civil liberties. Mind you, in a world where misogyny is universally trivialized (bigotry is dismissed as "disrespect" or "vulgar;" slurs are confused as common profanity), justified (blaming the victim), or openly celebrated (see: pop culture) this is a radical position. Hence, the demonization of feminism, associating it with all things vile (Think: "liberal").

So, although I am a liberal and a feminist I wouldn't use those words--especially the latter--to describe my beliefs b/c people immediately think of hysterical or bigoted myths that are *impossible* to counter since it requires you to prove a false negative.

Shouldn't be an issue in this election. Sex, race - none of this should be an issue - the issue is what the candidate stands for, whether we trust them and whether they tell the truth. Not that we won't have a qualified woman as President someday.

You should cut the NYTImes some slack here, because even if they do come off as crass, they are right, in this case.

American feminism has long been obsessed with the idea that once enough women make it into positions of power in this country, the way all people think about women and the way little girls think about themselves will quickly change. I think that this materialistic mentality is the reason why so many of my progressive female friends are so excited about HRC's candidacy. They have bought into the notion that once there is a woman in charge, something magical is going to happen. My black (as well as non black) progressive friends who are supporting Obama aren't doing so *because* he's black, but most of the women I know who are supporting Hillary do seem to be doing so in large part because of her gender. I find it very sad and frustrating that so many women in this country seem to be blinded by this idea that any woman in charge, no matter her politics or background, will be an advancement for all woman. I find it interesting that women who have had more career success are less likely to automatically consider giving Hillary their vote than women from the lower middle class. And I think that the fact that some women are waking up to the fact that HRC may indeed not be the best candidate for women in this country is a good sign. It means women are becoming secure enough to challenge ideas that until recently were more or less hegemonic within the feminist movement in America.

A female president would be cool, and it would probably lead to some changes in perception about what is possible for women. But it wouldn't change everything, and not only is the current female candidate so polarizing that it is questionable whether she would actually be able to get much done were she to get elected, she is a militarist who has only gotten where she is because of who she married. She is the wife of a former president who has already served two terms and is not allowed to serve again: If progressives weren't so enamored with the notion of "the first woman president", and if she wasn't a Democrat, I think a lot of progressives would be accusing her (as many conservatives are doing) of trying to do an end-run around the 22nd Amendment. There is a reason term limits were enacted, and just because it may be legal for her and Bill Clinton to be running for a chance to live in the White House together for a 3rd time, doesn't mean it's right. And she keeps talking about her "experience" as the first lady, but about the only thing she was truly *responsible* for was her failed health care initiative. Women would do well to look at other candidates, because she is definitely not the best one.

Ah, as a man, gender makes no difference to me, nor race.

I really don't understand what "feminist" means, but I love my daughter and want the most for her and anything and everything she wants, period. I feel the same way for any other female, so where does "feminism" come into the picture?

Traditionally, the term "feminist" evokes a sort of adversarial man against woman thing - I don't buy. I've heard from ex- "feminist" that the "feminist movement"" back in the early days consciously decided to frame the "feminist" cause as one of man vs. woman for marketing purposes.

But, what is a "feminist" today? And why would a young woman want to align herself with it? What compels some woman to attach the label "feminist" to herself and other not?

I'll be honest, the "feminist" label is like saying "danger." I am I wrong? Enlighten me will you - er, someone.

The question is, are we willing to do anything to switch the paradigm? Are we so sick and tired of the traditional image of the American president that we are willing to vote AGAINST the male or white presidential norm, rather than FOR a person with politics we genuinely agree with?

Any given candidate will be better for some women, while not for others. So the question in my mind is, who is better for women like me and my little sisters? Who will make my current situation better and create a foundation that will serve the interests of American women (ALL of us) in the future? Who is going to ask me what I need and make sure I have the means to get those things?

A woman any woman will make a difference in the historical identity of the American president, this will inevitably open doors for all women, like Hillary said, she "is trying to break the thickest of all glass ceilings" will a woman being elected create revolutionary change in favor of women? Not automatically, and in this case specifically, no.
We are not dealing with a revolutionary woman.

we shouldn't even be discussing whether gender is a justifiable reason to vote for someone. who cares what gender you are, we're at war and we need a GOOD LEADER. gender will NEVER guarantee common sense, leadership, or weakness. We can't choose a president based on stereotypes.

A president should be someone who is elected democratically by its people regardless of their gender. First, voters need many candidates so they can select and vote but why there is not many more women beside Hillary C. running for president in this country? I feel women are being misrepresented in this election!

Let me think: Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Coulter, or Michelle Malkin as president. Somehow I doubt they'd be fond of the basic rights and civil liberties of women and girls while in office.

No. There are plenty of women out there who are more than willing to put us back decades in our progress. Not saying that Hillary is one of them, but I'm proud to call myself a feminist and for me Hillary is certainly not a sure vote.