In an opinion piece published in the UK Telegraph, prominent intellectual Camille Paglia rips Hillary's Campaign and accuses her of making it more difficult for a woman to become president any time in the near future.
In her raw ambition and stubborn, grinding energy, Hillary will certainly cast a long shadow on young women aspiring to high office. She is both inspiring role model and cringe-making bad example — an overtly feminist careerist who never found a way to succeed without her husband's connections, advice, and intervention.
I've worried about the effect that Hillary is going to have on young women ever since my roommate and I talked to this young woman that we met on a city bus, who couldn't have been more than 12, but was obviously very intelligent. I was a little aghast when she described Hillary as "evil", but was really shocked when she suggested that Hillary's negativity was reflective of how women operated in the real world. This was a few months ago, so in light of Hillary's recent antics, I am no longer so concerned by her characterizing Hillary as "evil".
Ms. Paglia addresses a different concern about her influence on young women. Her worry is related specifically to the careers of future female political leaders.
The next major female presidential candidate will be well advised to stuff any errant husband into a rucksack and chuck him down a laundry chute. If they are to be truly equal, women must fight their own fights and not rely on a borrowed spotlight.
Hillary has tried to have it both ways: to batten on her husband's nostalgic popularity while simultaneously claiming to be a victim of sexism.
She also dashes the hopes of those of us who think that this nominating process might end easily or painlessly.
Those who think she will withdraw gracefully in a few weeks are living in cloud cuckoo land. The Clintons are ruthless scrappers who will lock their bulldog teeth in any bloody towel.
I certainly hope she's wrong, but can't really say that I have much confidence in that hope.
Unfortunately, despite considering herself a feminist, her observations are unlikely to have much influence on Hillary's feminist supporters. In her wikipedia entry she is described as "feminist that other feminists love to hate". Some of her views are pretty controversial, particularly in feminist academic circles. Nonetheless, she is an influential intellectual and her words are likely to resonate with any relatively objective observer. I strongly recommend reading the entire article.
Update Wow! This diary has instigated some lively discussion. As is probably obvious I am not that familiar with Paglia's work. If many of the comments here accurately reflect her views I would probably not be a big fan. I heard about the piece that is the subject of this diary from Randi Rhodes, who I absolutely adore, and thought it would be a good subject for a diary. The error in the link in my intro section has been corrected. I did not intend to reference my own diary. D'OH!!!