Posted on 04/19/2008 6:03:29 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
Is Hillary Clinton the saviour of feminism? Or its albatross, dragging feminism backwards under a weary weight of old-guard victimology and male-bashing?
The scrum is on! Feminist grand panjandrums like Gloria Steinem have leapt back into the arena, while younger women have seized the feminist banner to proclaim Hillary the messianic Wonder Woman, destined to smash the glass ceiling of the presidency.
All women, on pain of excommunication from the feminist claque, must now support Hillary. Never mind her spotty record or her naked political expediency. Any woman with the temerity to endorse Barack Obama (as I do) is condemned as a "traitor" to her sex. "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life," trumpeted Steinem earlier this year in an article promoting Hillary in the New York Times. Barriers of race, class or economics are waved away as mere frippery.
As a resident of Philadelphia, I am currently under siege by the firestorm of political adverts heading toward Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, which Hillary has long been expected to win. She has roots in this state: her grandfather was a Welshman who settled in the coal-mining city of Scranton, which remains conservative and working-class. Women there are tough and blunt, with few illusions about life.
Hillary's voter base consists of middle-aged to elderly white women who identify with her caustic, stubborn, bulldog resilience. Humiliated and upstaged by her philandering husband, Hillary is the champion of an army of women who were stymied, betrayed or outmanoeuvred by men. Over the past year, whenever her cowed male opponents mildly rebutted Hillary in debate, her campaign jumped into über-feminist mode: male bullies, they screeched, "ganging up" on a helpless damsel.
Losing ground with other core groups - notably her own cohort of upper-middle-class, baby-boom career woman - Hillary played the gender card to the max. When polling showed she had seemed too harsh to the caucus-goers of Iowa, she rolled out teary eyes for New Hampshire, which handed her a primary victory. Hillary will scratch, claw, and morph through every gender trick if it rakes in votes.
This symbol of raw female ambition has never comfortably fitted into a conventional sex role. As the first child of a hard-working and authoritarian father, Hillary absorbed his willfulness, competitive drive and suspicion. Excelling academically, Hillary felt ill at ease with the feminine persona so deftly deployed by pretty, popular girls in that era. Frumpy, stumpy and myopic, she identified with the new idolatry of shiny careerism promulgated by the second-wave feminism of the late 1960s, when she emerged from posh Wellesley College.
Though she would specialise in women's and children's issues, Hillary's public statements have often betrayed an ambivalence about women who chose a non-feminist path. "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies," she sneered during Bill's 1992 presidential campaign. Then, defending her husband against the claims of a 12-year affair by Gennifer Flowers, Hillary snapped: "I'm not sittin' here like some little woman, standing by my man like Tammy Wynette" - a sally that boomeranged when Hillary had to make an abject apology. The irony is that Hillary had offended the very group of stoical, put-upon, working-class women who are now proving to be her staunchest supporters.
Whatever her official feminist credo, Hillary's public career has glaringly been a subset to her husband's success. Despite her reputation for brilliance, she failed the Washington, DC bar exam. Thus her migration to Little Rock was not simply a selfless drama for love; she was fleeing the capital where she had hoped to make her mark.
In Little Rock, every role that Hillary played was obtained via her husband's influence - from her position at the Rose Law Firm to her seat on the board of Wal-Mart to her advocacy for public education reform. In a pattern that would continue after Bill became president, Hillary would draw attention by expressing public "concern" for a problem, without ever being able to organise a programme for reform.
Hillary has always been a policy wonk, a functionary attuned to bureaucratic process, but she has never shown executive ability, which makes her quest for the presidency problematic. Hillary's disastrous botching of national healthcare reform in 1993 (a project to which her husband rashly appointed her) will live in infamy. Obama may also have limited executive experience, but he has no comparable stain on his record.
The argument, therefore, that Hillary's candidacy marks the zenith of modern feminism is specious. Feminism is not well served by her surrogates' constant tactic of attributing all opposition to her as a function of entrenched sexism. Well into her second term as a US Senator, Hillary lacks a single example of major legislative achievement. Her career has consisted of fundraising, meet-and-greets and speeches around the world expressing support for women's rights.
What feminist supporters have recently denounced as troglodytic misogyny in media portrayals of Hillary has in fact been a function of her own strange sexual accommodations and ambiguities. Yes, she may surround herself with luscious, multicultural babes (such as her minder, Huma Abedin, or her now sacked aide, Patty Solis Doyle), but Hillary, despite the rumours, is no lesbian. She's a crucifix-wearing, Methodist do-gooder who confidently thinks she's God's agent. There's no room for random eroticism in her calendar.
Genuinely disturbing are the caricatures of Hillary (called "Hitlery" or "the Hildebeast" on the web) that rarely accrue to male candidates: she's portrayed as a hectoring nag, a witch on a broomstick, or a castrating bitch. But if such images were truly generated by simple fear of female power, we would expect to find them around other women politicians too, such as the current female Speaker of the House.
No, Hillary was demonised by the American electorate long before she sought elective office. It is Bill Clinton who is responsible for the tainted sexual aura around his wife.
Furthermore, Hillary's mythomania and her chameleon-like daily alterations of persona and voice are unsettling. (Even Hillary's eye colour is fake: she wears blue contact lenses.) No male candidate enjoys Hillary's options as a woman to tailor her costume to the audience.
Hillary's recent remarks about politics as a "boys' club" resistant to uppity women was sheer demagoguery. By progressing farther than any woman presidential candidate, she has become a role model for future aspirants. But by attaching herself so blatantly to anti-male rhetoric - particularly in view of her debt to her husband - she is espousing a retrograde brand of feminism no longer applicable to the US.
If Hillary loses, batten the hatches against a mass resurrection of paranoid, paleo-feminist martyrs, counting their wounds and wailing at the blood-red moon.
Ick.
I love leftists with principles. I won’t necessarily vote for them or their preferences, but I have to respect the leftist that recognizes the two-faced opportunism that aptly describes Hillary Diane Rodham Milhouse Clinton
I’m looking forward to “Why men shouldn’t, either.” ;)
> The scrum is on! Feminist grand panjandrums like Gloria Steinem have leapt back into the arena, while younger women have seized the feminist banner to proclaim Hillary the messianic Wonder Woman, destined to smash the glass ceiling of the presidency.
Whoa! Not-funny the mixed metaphors, ay. My brain just exploded!
Camille, as always, is all over the place. As clear-headed as she likes to think she is—and even after admitting that she voted for Bill Clinton twice and coming to regret it—there she goes endorsing Obama! She’s got her wires crossed in several places.
Camille can write !..In her hands the pen becomes the swift sword, deftly wielded,right to the heart of the matter..
There is much wisdom in this piece and the conclusion is well drawn..Hillary cannot win because she has basically been a follower, not a leader; when she speaks it is of the old feminism, she is missing the modern,successful, multi-tasking career and home ballancing woman with worries about everyday life issues, while still trying to maintain her femininity..A modern woman at her level would have dumped a philandering husband, made her own way in the world and would be a success in her own right. She is still mesmerized by the afterglow of a dying Camelot...one she helped to light the fire to...
Brilliant column Ms. Paglia..Thank you...eh, Right On Baby !
I love Camille. :-)
There, more accurate.
I can see why Paglia doesn’t think hillary is a good representative for feminism. What has she accomplished aside from being married to bill clinton?
But why on earth does she support Holy Hussein?
There...that would be a better title
I just like that she is fairly honest. That is always impressive. The liberals I detest the most are the ones who try to convince us they really don’t believe what they write in their books and proclaim loudly in protest. Camille is still a leftist but one who doesn’t delude herself in the process. She makes practical decisions based upon what she believes. Christopher Hitchens has impressed me in the same way. They are indeed still deluded but at least they hold standards and aren’t just playing cheerleader and are willing to make the case for what they believe and set it side by side and leave it at that.
> Camille can write !..In her hands the pen becomes the swift sword, deftly wielded,right to the heart of the matter..
Interesting. So you reckon she wrote in this style on purpose, ay... hmmmmmm....
OK, I’ll go back and do a re-read.
BTW, thanks for your Service. You guys were heroes to my generation, and certainly to me.
Camille is a bit spotty herself.
Wow, that's some endorsement.
I have a better one: Why normal people should not vote for Hillary!
Great observation. One may disagree with their conclusions, but you feel that if you advanced a differing point of view, they wouldn't be reduced to sticking their fingers in their ears and going lalalalala.
It is a rare writer indeed who can summon shades of Coleridge in a mere political screed.
I thought I knew a lot about Hillary, but I never heard that she failed the D.C. bar exam...
I appreciate the same thing about her, and have said so before on FR. This go round, though, it just struck me that she has a huge political blindspot. She could easily be lamblasting Obama as a flake, and yet she is endorsing him.
“But why on earth does she support Holy Hussein?” by Cicero
1, He’s Democrat 2) He’s the un-Clinton whom she strongly disapproves of...
For more of her writing and reasoning, here is another article by her on Clinton and Obama...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/03/12/red_phone/
The question is, why?
The only "recognition" there is is she has found someone she likes better. Paglia would be right in line to kiss Queen Hillary's arse if there was no Obama.
I know it.
You know it.
She knows it.
Diane? The name on her birth certificate says 'Hildegarde Braun', Braun being the name of her mother, her father being you-know-who.
Diane? The name on her birth certificate says 'Hildegarde Braun', Braun being the name of her mother, her father being you-know-who.
Well, of course she isn’t likely to come out in favor of McCain. But she could just say that there are three lousy candidates and leave it at that.
Hillary is bad, but Obama is even worse.
Yes and I agree that she can be and is sometimes all over the place...That she is endorsing bambi is a no brainer...she’s a leftist feminist lesbian...
I do however find her very interesting because at the least she is an honest person with a very high intelect and a great capacity to see other points of view without blatent bias or bombast...
When I saw her for the first time on C-span about 4 or 5 yrs ago I thought, ok here we go with another feminist screed.. instead I watched and listened for about an hour and was pleasantly surprised at her commentary...including a brief story of cigars at dinner with el Rushbo...
And Mz. Paglia is dripping for a little discipline as well.
I have been told a few times by a lefty female friend that I should be voting for Hillary because she’s a woman. I told my friend that Hillary would not be where she was if she had not been married to Bill, because she was no more qualified to run for president than is Laura Bush. I guess I should’ve said former lefty female friend...
Good column by Camille, she’s got Hillary to a T. Too bad she’s got the Obambi bug.
Both used to make their living being radical leftists. As that gig sputtered, they had an epiphany? That's just how they have chosen to make a living. Now and then, they get more attention, noteriety, and bucks by acknowledging something wrong with leftists and leftwing ideology.
Haven't heard from Camile in a while have we? Both she and Hitchens make their living off being leftists who criticize leftists now. They are intellectual con artists. They make their living talking and writing.
yitbos
And I would be arrested on arrival.
Camille, you’re rejecting the Arsenic and swallowing the Strychnine.
Where were you in ‘92 & ‘96 in regards to the “2 for 1” chameleon, Camille? Where were you during angelic-victim’s Senate races? Are you backed into a credibility corner and chewing off your neo-feminist leg to escape the trap you’ve been sitting in for the last XX years?
Nonetheless, a well-written article and a great thread.
The argument, therefore, that Hillary's candidacy marks the zenith of modern feminism is specious. Feminism is not well served by her surrogates' constant tactic of attributing all opposition to her as a function of entrenched sexism.
Hillary is an empty suit: A female one. With nothing substantive inside the suit. And that Hillary's feminist supporters are actually accomplishing the goal of defeating "feminism" as a political organizing principal. In short form, we may as well on the ballot have a write-in to vote for: "Vagina".
And Hillary's supporters are in fact re-entrenching the very idea that Hillary is a sexual organ worthy of no other consideration except for that.
However, that being said, should Hillary be elected means that metaphysically, more women will be consequently viewed as "vaginas" rather than by the content of their character(s).
BO, OTOH, has a substance, albeit a Marxian one. But at least he has one. He has an entire voting record of supporting anti-liberty issues and causes.
Stack those two together, and on a matter of character level, ask yourself whether you'd rather hang your baggage with a Vagina or a Human who chooses to hate America. In the final analysis, one can fight a Human who chooses to hate America; but what is one supposed to do to, for, with a Vagina?
As usual, Ms. Paglia's analysis gets right down to the bare bones.
Darling, I just love the way she thinks about Hillary and I love her contrary nature. Do I love how she feels about Obama or even most things. Not at all. Love in this context is fondness an intellectual appeal not a statement of agreement.
I like people who say and think unconventional things that indicate they have a depth beyond the surface of their political alignment.
I think you are too cynical. Hitchens most certainly is a leftist but he unlike the other leftists did not take up a love fest for tyranny because a Republican just happened to stand against it. I can not make a statement as to his intent only that he makes sense and has clearly thought out his position and is not simply a political hack.
No surprise here. Paglia is and always has been an uncloseted lesbian. She will ALWAYS resent Hillary for being either a closeted lesbian or at the least a latent lesbian.
Nor I, and I'll make a small wager Rush hasn't either.
Nor I, and I'll make a small wager Rush hasn't either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.