In a piece on MSNBC today entitled, Do Women want to see Hillary fail?, Susan Shapiro Barash argues that women who aren't voting for Hillary want to see her fail. Why? A few reasons...
Female rivalry / we're jealous: Instead of being expansive toward other women, we believe in a "magical theft," as if somehow Hillary's ascension connotes another woman's lost opportunity.
Women who don't support Hillary are confused by the patriarchy: As if the gender card doesn't carry enough weight (only 21 percent of the primary voters in Pennsylvania felt that gender was meaningful in their decision), the female argument against Hillary is that she shouldn't be supported just because she's a woman. This proves that the mixed messages of our society continue to confuse women.
But don't worry! Hillary won 57% of female voters in PA - so there's hope for us women and for unity yet!!
Susan Shapiro Barash wants women to be united - and she thinks she'll accomplish that task by saying that women who support Obama are just jealous of Hillary, and that we're confused by the patriarchy. Our choice has nothing to do with Obama being the better candidate. Nope.
On Monday I read another MSNBC article - this one an AP piece, Superdelegate 'sisterhood' questioned - which has a nice veiled threat from Ellen R. Malcolm, president and founder of EMILY's list, to any elected woman that's been helped by EMILY's list:
"They feel that they elect the women and they've gone to bat for the women and they want every single woman to go to bat for every woman candidate," she added.
Asked whether Klobuchar and fellow freshman Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, another Obama superdelegate, risk losing their seats over these endorsements, Malcolm said, "We'll just have to wait and see."
She notes later in the article:
"It is sort of a man bites dog story when the women senators or congresswomen support Senator Obama," said Malcolm.
There are comments related to Barash's story here. I'm guessing similar comments will be made here. One comment that appears over and over again:
While I'd love to see a female president, I'm not sure Hillary Clinton is that woman. I appreciate her hard work in campaigning for this job, and how well she's done.
or
I would love to see a female president - I just don't want it to be Hillary Clinton.
or
I don't support Hillary because I don't agree with her politics.
or
Maybe Hillary is not the right women who should be in the white house. I would rather see Gov. Janet Napolitano elected as president than Hillary.
Same sentiment, and the authors of those comments (where gender is identifiable), appear to be women.
To go back to Barash for a moment -
For many men, it is enough to disdain Hillary merely because she is an impressive woman, even though the rhetoric is contradictory. Haven't we all heard a man in the room say, "It's not that I'm against a woman for president. I just don't like her"? Women who succeed in our society are always held to a higher examination than their male counterparts.
See, according to Barash it isn't possible for me to support Obama over Hillary because I disagree with Hillary's politics. What's happened is that I'm confused by the patriarchy, so I'm holding Hillary to a higher standard. Why didn't I notice it before?!
Maybe it's because I was choosing my candidate based on a certain set of criteria...
I wanted a candidate who was a few things -
Progressive.
Honest. A candidate with integrity.
A winner.
Positive message.
Solidly progressive policies.
Inspiring and an inspiring story.
Good speaker.
Good reputation.
Runs a good campaign.
Those aren't all the reasons I support Obama. If I started talking about those I would be writing through tomorrow night. There must be a hundred thousand reasons I support Obama - and have for over a year.
Up until the debate in October, I would have been thrilled to vote for Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Nominee. During that debate - something happened that made me start to doubt...and then it seemed like the floodgates were open. At that point there was something every week - some reason to be frustrated with the Clinton campaign, some reason to wonder how I went from being so excited to vote for her if she were the nominee, to dreading the day I'd have to (if I did) vote for her if she were the nominee.
Barash has my reasoning all wrong. I'm not doubting that this is true for some:
Research has shown that over 90 percent of women from different social strata claim that envy and jealousy toward other women colors their lives. Eighty percent say they have encountered jealousy in other females since grade school. We envy successful women and applaud when they crash and burn.
Of course there's envy and jealousy. Those are human traits. We all have them - regardless of gender. But I don't tend to envy people like Hillary Clinton - and my envy of them doesn't promote an inner desire to see them fail. If I feel envy towards someone, my typical response is, "gee, I wish I was in that spot...I'm not...how could I get there."
If I'm being really honest here - I have no desire to be where Hillary Clinton is. Am I envious that she's successful and a Senator? Nope. I'm glad she is - and I've always been impressed by her drive and her abilities and her intellect. My desire to see her lose the nomination has nothing to do with those things and everything to do with the fact that she does not meet my criteria for a Presidential candidate.
-- It started with Clinton's decision to stay on the ballot in MI. That seemed like an odd thing to do. Why not just fully discredit the MI primary and pull out like the others. What was she up to. I didn't mind that too much - in hindsight though - boy does that one make a lot of sense!
-- Then we moved to the debate where she flip-flopped on the question about Drivers Licenses for illegal immigrants in NY and then came out a few days after she'd polled it to say that she didn't support that idea.
-- Then we had an attempt at student voter suppression in Iowa - detailed here by Michael Connery (that one was promoted to the FP here), and also by psericks.
-- Then there was the whopper for me - the moment where I said "no more". This was the moment where I decided that if Hillary Clinton won the nomination, I'd have to re-register as an Independent because I couldn't belong to a party that rewarded these tactics. What tactics? Race-baiting in South Carolina:
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," Ferraro, a Clinton supporter, told the deliciously-named Torrance Daily Breeze in a story the newspaper ran on March 7. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
-- Then Clinton tried to make Rezko a problem for Obama.
-- And of course, Hillary Clinton wouldn't have kept Reverend Wright around as her pastor. No way.
So yeah, in the scope of things, I think there are plenty of reasons for me to support Obama over Clinton - and none of them have anything to do with my jealousy or my being confused into demanding more of female candidates by the evil patriarchy.
Several months ago Kath25 wrote a diary, The Best Candidate For A Woman. AdamB wrote another, The Smartest, Simplest Policy Proposal of The Campaign. At the time I wished both of those diaries could have been Feminisms diaries, but the community here was so divided and I tried to maintain Feminisms as a non-partisan diary series. That didn't always work - and the mere fact that my name was often attached to it was probably enough to make it not work according to some readers (since it's always been pretty clear who I supported here). I have to say - at this point, I feel comfortable writing this diary - and if I get slammed for it, oh well.
The fact is, I see Obama as the best candidate for women - for all the reasons Kath25 mentions:
Barack Obama’s platform specifically emphasizes a progressive stance on issues that are important to women voters, and has been vocal throughout his campaign about his desire to do right by women as President. The lengthly list on Women for Barack Obama emphasizes the many areas in which an Obama Presidency will benefit American women, with explanations for each. Here are just some of his positions:
Supporting A Woman’s Right to Choose Preventing Unwanted Pregnancy
Reducing Domestic Violence Strengthening Domestic Violence Laws
Fixing the Nation’s Healthcare System Empowering Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS
Supporting Research into Women’s Health and Stem Cells Fighting Gender Violence Abroad
Fighting for Pay Equality Investing in Women-Owned Businesses
Improving Child-Support Collection Raising the Minimum Wage
Supporting Low-Income Families Improving After-School Programs
Expanding Early Childhood Education Promoting Women in Math and Science
Improving Schools Making College More Affordable
And at this point, looking through the long list of events that turned me away from Clinton - I don't see Hillary as a particularly "Feminist" candidate. Of course, when you're running the Rove playbook, it's hard to be a Feminist. At that point, I think you're probably solely interested in your own win - damn everyone else and the consequences of your actions too.
In the end, I'm sick and tired of being insulted by the "sisterhood" because I don't support the woman who is running. I'm not confused. I'm not jealous. The patriarchy hasn't co-opted my little brain. Believe it or not, I do have the ability to think. I don't need the help of other women to accomplish that task anymore than I need the help of men to accomplish it.
