The Outlook opinion section of the Washington Post this morning features the headline "Women vs. Women" above side-by-side columns. Given that polls show women split more-or-less evenly between the Democratic candidates, this struck me as a reasonable topic for the standard pro/con Sunday op-ed formula.
Fortunately, the Post has done something far more illuminating (and, alas, more traditional) than giving feminist supporters of Hillary and Barack an opportunity to air their views. Turns out, "Women vs. Women" refers to the way both columnists attack their own gender, presumably with the nodding approval of male Outlook Page editor John Pomfret and his boss Fred Hiatt.
Join me below the jump for a look at these self-hating sexist screeds and for an alternate explanation of how gender is playing out in the 08 race.
"We Scream, We Swoon, How Dumb Can We Get?" is by Charlotte Allen, a PhD student in medieval studies who contributes to a conservative site called "Minding the Campus." Allen invokes the idea that Obama supporters are mindless groupies and says:
I can't help it, but reading about such episodes of screaming, gushing and swooning makes me wonder whether women -- I should say, "we women," of course -- aren't the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial. Women "are only children of a larger growth," wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right?
Allen goes on to say that Hillary has "run one of the worst – and, yes, stupidest – presidential races in recent history, marred by every stereotypical flaw of the female sex." Not really interested in this incredible and bogus claim, Allen closes her column with a flirty discussion of the junk-science "evidence" that women are less intelligent than men. And worse drivers, too!
Charlotte, dear, women are not dumb, but by writing in this fashion you appear to be.
The other column, by pseudo-feminist philosophy professor Linda Hirschman, at least tackles an interesting question: why "women" are the only group not voting for their demographic interests. If blacks are voting for Obama and men are voting for Obama, why aren’t women voting for Hillary?
Hirschman spends much of her column discussing class issues, claiming that women without college educations have remained loyal to Hillary while more elite women have betrayed her. But class is not Hirschman’s real interest. Her animating agenda is to attack feminism and feminists for not living up to her peculiar, academic dream of what the movement should be.
The only conclusion: American women still aren't strategic enough to form a meaningful political movement directed at taking power. Will they ever be?
This is a peculiar thesis, resting on the assumption that the purpose of feminism is to "take power," as if under a Clinton presidency women would rise up like Amazons to subordinate men. To understand where she is coming from, consider that Hirshman gained notoriety years ago for attacking stay-at-home moms in. Her book, Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World, claims that "by any measure, a life of housework and child care does not meet the standards of a good human life."
Hirshman’s brand of feminism, in other words, is so mean and unsisterly as to be indistinguishable from sexism. In the column, she derides Maria Shriver for having "great hair." She calls the event featuring Shriver, Oprah and Michelle Obama in California "a girl-power rally." She says,
the Obama campaign reached out to the fair sex, following Clinton's announcement of women-oriented programs with similar ones within a matter of weeks. I can imagine the strategists for the senator from Illinois thinking, "What's that song in Verdi's 'Rigoletto'?" Women are fickle.
Turns out it's true.
Hirshman uses the term "fair sex" here not ironically but mockingly, as Limbaugh might. She attributes to the Obama campaign her own belief that women really are behaving in an inferior, stereotypical and easily exploitable way.
This is seen most clearly at the end of the column, when Hirshman wonders why so many successful women and feminists have turned away from Hillary. She considers a number of reasons, including lack of solidarity with working class women, a preference for the "less bellicose" candidate or (and here she gets serious) Yuppie identification with
the young and handsome Barack and Michelle Obama, with their white-porticoed mansion in one of the cooler Chicago neighborhoods and her Jimmy Choo shoes.
Hirshman eventually settles on a reason even more shallow than shoes. She suggests that the "movement" quality of Obama’s campaign has generated "powerful peer pressure" on younger, affluent women. Hirshman believes that -- just like the Beatles-worshipping teeny boppers in the photo that accompanies the column -- millions of women are betraying their gender for a fad.
In all this, Hirshman poses as a disappointed feminist. In truth, no feminist would embrace such thin, stereotyped and demeaning explanations for the political behavior of women. With her dreams of a world in which women seek fulfillment exclusively in the workplace, Hirshman seems more like a disappointed misogynist – one of those guys at the bar ranting that women wouldn’t be so bad if they were just more like men.
*******************
What can these two awful columns teach us about the campaign? For one thing, the historical progress marked by our two great, non-white-male candidates does not mean that we have begun a Utopian era of perfect tolerance. No matter who wins, gender and race will still matter. The old stereotypes will find ways to reassert themselves.
For another thing, Hirshman’s malicious answer to "the Hillary question" suggests a more sympathetic one. Why haven’t women, in the end, rallied to the first woman with a real chance at the presidency? Simply put, Hillary is not an ideal vehicle for the principles of feminism. Despite her admirable qualities, she came to power through the auspices of her husband.
On strictly biographical terms, Obama has by far the better story for people who value equality and progress. He became the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, and then the first black Senator from Illinois, completely on his own terms and through his own effort and talent. He embraced his blackness and won.
Hillary has amazing personal qualities – strength, tenacity, self-discipline, a brilliant command of policy detail – that would make her one of our most qualified presidents. Chris Matthews was wrong to say that Hillary became the front-runner solely "because her husband messed around." But Hillary’s story is bound up inextricably with Bill and with her role as the First Lady who "stood by her man." At the most recent debate, when the candidates were asked about their experience in a crisis, everyone knew that Hillary’s crucible involved not policy or politics but infidelity. Hillary has won in part by embracing a subordinate and stereotyped role. Many Hillary supporters believe that she deserves to win because of what she endured as the Big Dawg’s wronged wife.
Perhaps we can look at it this way. Older women can see themselves in Hillary. But, thinking of Hillary’s whole story, as it is understood by the wider culture, would any woman want their daughter to grow up to be Hillary?
Would anyone want their daughter up there on the podium, publicly humiliated as Bill denied having relations with Monica?
In contrast, would anyone – black or white or other – not want their son to grow up to be like Barack Obama?
In any ordinary year, Hillary’s story would be good enough to rally not just feminists but all Democrats who want to see our country overcome the intolerant past. Charlotte Allen’s puerile scorn notwithstanding, Hillary is an impressive candidate who, if she blundered, did so by failing to see beyond the tired, cautious campaign tactics adopted by the entire (mostly male) Democratic establishment since her husband won reelection in 1996.
Unfortunately for Hillary, when feminists ask which candidate better exemplifies feminist values such as inclusion, equality, empathy and progress, the best woman for the job might be a man.
Update: This diary originally referred to a sex act with a cigar in a way that offended some readers. My intention was to highlight the indignity that Hillary suffered, not to add to it, so I have toned down the language.