I think, after reflecting on it for the last thirty-five years, that I understand something of what motivates the hatred of Hillary cited by Sady Doyle.
I was a resident of Conway, AR, moving in after Governor Clinton had been elected, but before he’d taken office, and my family moved to Dallas, TX, after he’d lost his bid for reelection, but before he left office. My family’s women are universally feminists, so when Governor Clinton took office, great attention was paid to him, but even more to his wife.
In Arkansas, Hillary was an icon of feminism to the residents: Tough-minded, defiant about the role society defined for her, extremely intelligent, and having enough education in her own right to be capable of independence and demanding the respect she was due, despite rigorous social preconceptions.
I can remember the eighth grade girls on my bus, as the Clintons took residence in the governor’s mansion: “She’s awful. She doesn’t even try to look pretty.” By contrast, I was a pre-teen, obsessed with the legends of King Arthur and the concepts of God’s grace and chivalry. I found attacks on Hillary, toward whom my family was well-disposed, to be extraordinarily offensive, so my affection took root and blossomed against the hostility I saw directed toward her.
Hillary was an affront to the traditions of white male-dominated society of Arkansas. For perspective, when she entered the Governor's Mansion in Little Rock, it was still state law that when women voted, their husband was to accompany them into the voting booth.
I think the best description of how society’s values operate in the South was best explained in “Mississippi Burning:“
In the intervening years, I’ve studied a great deal of psychology and read a lot of Freud and Jung. Hillary's like what C. G. Jung described as an Archetype. Hermione in the Harry Potter books was a riff on the same chords, and explains my great affection for the character. At the end of what has been a patriarchy for all of recorded history, where men (particularly white men, since the renaissance) have been accustomed to explaining away their privilege as their success in an objective meritocracy.
When women started to enter the workforce during the world wars, I think that those who could appreciate it found that being in the workforce was incredibly easy, especially when compared to what had been expected of them as stay-at-home, childbearing homemakers, waiting on the other members of their families most of their waking lives.
My best friend is a good man, friendly to everyone, and in traditional terms, a good conservative Catholic. He makes a good wage as a linux coding specialist, loves his family (including their dog) with all his heart, and wants what he sees as our great society to be perpetuated. His wife is an M.D., specifically an endocrinologist. The rigors of her practice require that she be on call for many of her days off, she makes triple what my best friend does, but is nevertheless expected to keep the house clean, maintain order in the kitchen, see to the meals (in some form or fashion), do the laundry, and despite all the demands on her time, be "nurturing." They are both Republicans, but she's perceptive enough to have some resentment about the default roles and responsibilities they have.
More than anything else, Hillary has been obliged to fight social preconceptions all her life. I think she’s about to win.