It’s so clear to me now that women are just jealous of me, and wish they could look like me. You’re probably jealous of me too. Sound familiar? I’m sure you’ve known at least ONE person like that over the course of your lifetime. If you thought THAT attitude was lousy, hang on. There’s now an intellectualized "prom queen" defense being offered to explain why Hillary Clinton hasn’t been able to ‘close the deal’ in getting ALL women to support her. According to Susan Shapiro Barash, women are either jealous of Hillary Clinton and threatened by the power she’s achieved, or we’re all doing the master’s bidding and we’re all too confused by the male patriarchy that keeps us held down to know any better.
Barash, referring to the PA primary, states that:
This victory represents a long needed turnaround in female thinking, and the hope that women are coalescing, recognizing that our country needs and deserves the chance for female leadership.
...
When Nora Ephron pointed out in her Huffington Post piece that "white men will still decide who gets to be president," it drives home how important it is for women to band together. Yet contrary to conventional belief that female solidarity is alive and well, the exact opposite has been evidenced in the reaction of many women to Hillary.
If we take it a step further, what exists is a "limited goods" theory. 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. The shame here is not only in this profound lack of support, woman to woman, but a false sense that our fate is to miss out when another woman wins.
The irony? That a feminist didn’t recognize the patronizing argument that there is such a thing as a prototypic woman. Hillary Clinton is supposed to represent the best interests of women, and why? Because she IS a woman. Alan Keyes is an American of African descent. So am I. He’s a bright man, even if I find his policies a little bat crap crazy, from a progressive’s perspective. Did I OWE it to him to support him when he ran for President? His ideas about what moves us forward are FAR different from my own beliefs. He’s anti-choice. Should I have put that aside and supported him?
Clinton has shown, me at least, that she responds to what is most politically expedient and that she hasn’t been a feminist in a very long time – if ever. I ‘owe’ her no more than I ‘owe’ Alan Keyes. I find her and her hawkish views as equally offensive as I find Keyes views about women’s rights. Why hasn’t it crossed Barash’s mind that it’s ‘The Clintons’ Democrats have become tired of (and that Republicans despise)? That’s not a gender issue. Why wasn’t the essay one that explored the LEGITIMATE reasons why so many women have difficulty supporting Clinton?
I’m fed up with being told that not supporting Clinton, when you’re a woman, is a sign of weakness or self-loathing. I have to wonder if some feminists who are supporting Hillary aren't trying to rationalize their support for her by creating a false narrative that she's under attack because of her gender, and that they need to 'protect' her. It may make them feel better about supporting Clinton’s anti-feminist emasculating taunts of Obama – yes, men who are sensitive, smart, and pro-woman are ‘too weak’ to run the country. How is it possible that women who support Obama are ‘tools of the man’, while those who support Clinton’s ‘the better man’ campaign’ are true feminists? Why hasn’t Barash discussed Obama’s platform and that he’s a pro-feminist candidate – the only one who doesn’t need to be ‘one of the boys’ in order to connect with the American voters? Keep supporting that pandering Clinton ideology, sisters!
It may please you to know that Marie Wilson is asking for help writing ‘The Gender Speech’ – one similar to that of Sen. Obama’s "More Perfect Union’. What I find interesting is that feminists supporting Clinton have never asked why SHE didn’t think to write that speech already. She’s been more than content to ask women to stand with her and to support her – she’s been doing it for quite some time now. ("Ask not what your gender can do for you, ask what you can do for your gender"). My response to Marie Wilson’s request:
Senator Obama's speech on 'race' included people like me, black women who are at the intersection and have been negatively impacted by RACE than gender. I'm always offended when feminists discount that to push the Clinton angle. I know, I know, in 1972 Shirley Chisholm said that she was more negatively impacted by sexism than racism. I have yet to read the use of that Chisholm quote from a feminist who wasn't trying to make the case that Sen. Clinton has been far more disadvantaged than Sen. Obama. As Clinton is supposed to represent all women, Chisholm's '72 statement is supposed to be representative of all women of color.
The Clinton name, Clinton machinery, MSM compliance and support, tapping out big donors early because of the structured campaign run by experienced pols ... SHE’S disadvantaged?
Since he began his campaign, I’ve watched Sen. Obama pull this nation together. HE didn’t use race, or gender, orientation, or class status as wedge issues. His focus was on ONE America, where the rights of all were to be respected and upheld. I’m sorry that the Clinton camp has decided that "balkanizing" the Democratic Party is the only way to go. I’m sorry that Penn’s colleague, Doug Schoen, has decided that Clinton should continue to go negative and would be winning if she’d gone negative early on. I’m sorry that it’s not already June 3rd, so that we can focus on what nominee Obama needs - as well as our down ticket candidates. I’m not sorry that I’m a woman who isn’t supporting Sen. and President Clinton’s bid to return to the White House. In fact, I’m quite proud of it.