Why Hillary?

This post is courtesy of Professor J, who graciously provided her point of view behind her support of Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

When I was an undergraduate, there was a young man in the English department, another student, who was a bit of a jerk. I remember one March day when he was complaining about the women’s history activities on campus, and he said, “We have black history month, and we have women’s history month. When are we going to have White Men’s History Month?” I reacted to this query in much the same way that I reacted to everything Andy had to say—with a sneer and a snort. “Every month is white men’s history month. Have you ever taken a history or literature class?” He didn’t like me very much.

A couple of weeks ago—after the Texas primaries—Julie asked me to write about why I had decided to support Hillary Clinton and become a delegate for her. Obviously, I haven’t done so yet. Indeed, I find it difficult to continue my support in the face of so much negative campaigning. Of course, I have obligated myself to be a delegate and to support Senator Clinton, so clarifying my reasons for supporting her is a good idea.


I am a second wave feminist who came of age during the fight for the Equal Rights Amendment. When I was twelve years old, I subscribed to two magazines: American Girl (the Girl Scouts’ monthly) and Ms. (My mother thought it was the perfect expression of adolescence.) I cut my teeth on the early writings of Gloria Steinem, Alice Walker, and Robin Morgan. I came out as a lesbian in 1980 at a National Organization of Women conference. As it was years before my first sexual encounter with a woman, you might well say that my coming out was as much a political act as it was a response to the crush I had on Sharon.

For much of my adult life I have identified as a radical feminist.

And so, the opportunity to vote for a woman as president is no small thing for me.

Even so, I originally supported John Edwards for president, and I was torn when it came to choosing between Senators Clinton and Obama. I like to think that I have grown beyond thinking of gender as the defining issue of our times. That is, until I witnessed the gross and blatant misogyny of my students and the internet campaign against Senator Clinton.

Let us tell the truth. In the fourteenth century, women made sixty cents to a man’s dollar. What does she earn now? Sixty-nine cents? Seventy? In the nineteenth century, many of our great writers were dealing with the fact that marriage, while ideally a wonderful institution, is often a burden on women. In the twenty-first century, most women work outside the home, giving them the illusion of freedom, but they are also the keepers of the home. It is their responsibility to care for the home and children. As a result, most women work two jobs. The institution of marriage is still not a democratic institution for most families.

And it is more acceptable to hate women than it is to hate African Americans. Not that we don’t hate African Americans—we just can’t say so.

In the furor over Sen. Obama’s pastor, I realized that, although I wouldn’t put it in quite the same way, I agree with much of what he said. I don’t think white America created AIDs as a way to kill African Americans, but I can remember thinking that it was a mighty convenient way to kill gays. A little paranoia is difficult to avoid when the really are out to get you. I really appreciated Obama’s speech yesterday. I wish Senator Clinton would address gender issues as well. And mostly, I wish they both would address issues of class and poverty. Because the truth is that gender isn’t the central issue, and race isn’t the central issue: the central issue is the fear of the other.

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama would work to bring about social change that would benefit our country. Simply offering health care to the poor and the working poor would be a huge change for the better. I will happily vote for either of them in the Fall.

I remember when Geraldine Ferraro was running for vice president and someone asked my mother if she would honestly vote for someone simply because she was a woman. “Damn Right!” mama replied. I remember when I first got auto insurance from my adjuster, and she was shocked that I had picked her name out of the yellow pages simply because she was a woman.

I am a feminist.

And, as shallow as others may think it, I must support the female business woman, the female candidate, if I can. Certainly I would not support a business woman who was shoddy or dishonest, and I would not support a female candidate who held a position I considered reprehensible. Fortunately, I do not have that problem today. I believe that Senator Clinton is a decent person with good values and ideas. And so, I support her.

Comments

[Kim@Religiarchy]

Good for you. It's no shame to vote for a woman because she is one. Or because she's the best candidate, even if she hasn't had a fair shake. The misogynism during this campaign has been astounding.

And I can't imagine a bigger "change" to U.S. politics than putting a woman at its helm.

[PunditMom]

Not shallow at all. While I certainly want qualified women to be insurance adjusters or doctors or mechanics or real estate agents -- or politicians -- there does come a time when women have to say, "I'll stand with the woman."

Many, many men make that same gender calculation every day -- I'll ask the male junior associate to be on my team instead of the female, I'll vote for the male candidate, and I'll choose the guy accountant. On some level, we can't help ourselves -- we choose what we're comfortable and familiar with. I, too, was an Edwards supporter first. But I also have to go with Hillary on this one -- if she can last.

As my eight-year-old daughter has said many times during this race, "Mamma, if the girls haven't had a turn yet, I think it's only fair for them to have a turn now -- or two or three turns." I can't disagree with her.

[John J.]

I understand the identity politics argument; the problem is that it can just as easily back fire. Identity politics is how Clarence Thomas made it into the Supreme Court. I hope you wouldn't vote for Condoleezza Rice or Ann Coulter just because they are women. I believe stupidity and incompetence are equal opportunity impairments and a woman could be a bad president just as easily as a man.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't classify Clinton with either of those two women. I just disagree with the general statement "Because she is a woman she will be better for women." I also think that in this race, the wage gap and other related arguments are poorly chosen. The problem with these is that, while women do face a wage gap and glass ceiling, the problems are even more pronounced among African Americans (and African American women have the worst of both worlds) and other minorities. http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/median-earnings-by-race-2006.html (there is a flaw in this number in that they only counted full time earners' incomes. I don't have numbers for full time employees, but 10% of blacks were unemployed in 2005 and only 5% of women).

Hillary Clinton has her own merits to run on. She should be running on these and not the coin toss that is her genetics.

[Motherhood Uncensored]

John, then I assume you would say the same thing about Obama.

I certainly don't fault anyone for voting for Obama based on his race, nor Hillary for her gender. There are way worse things to factor in (like who's cuter -- barf).

But Hillary has impressed me. And I like that.

[John J.]

I do, actually, Motherhood; I don't believe identity politics or, as some are claiming about white Obama supporters, "reparations" politics should be the guiding factor in choosing a president (emphasis on should, I'm not so much an idealist to think that it doesn't). There are many worse ways to choose (I would volunteer current media darling...).

On their merits and on their policies, Obama has impressed me far more than any other candidate yet.

[cynematic]

I'm too skeptical of the "role model" effect to make that my primary criteria for voting for a candidate. (I think if it works, it's a happy by-product of the overall policies and tenor of the president's time in office.)

And I've gone from being happy to vote for either one to realizing that I'd grudgingly vote for Clinton after all the negative campaigning and subtle/not-so-subtle racism her campaign has engaged in once she apparently decided "the African American vote" was no longer hers. So on that we'll have to be feminists who disagree.

[Gunfighter]

You can't possibly believe that Senator CLinton would govern any differently than most men.... can you? Just because of her gender?

For shame.

The feminist movement boils down to vote for inset-candidate-here because she is a woman?

I have news for you... the first woman president won't be a left-over from the 1960's. She won't be a radical feminist. Radical feminists are unelectable.

[Tanya Middleton]

My hard time with Hilary is that she is becoming the weighing decision of whether women are capable or not. I dont think she is the woman that I would put all my eggs in one basket over. Your blog is really inspiring, I find that its imperative for women to come together in support of one another in politics and business (all the male dominated fields). I actually work with Microsoft, and right now I’m really excited to spread the word about the “Vision to Venture” tour they’re having between April and May, which will consist of five live events. Susan Solovic, the best-selling author and CEO of SBTV.com, will be giving the keynote speech-“Girls Guide to Building a Million Dollar Business”-geared toward strong minded women like yourself. You can see more and register at http://smallbusiness.officelive.com/v2v/ so let me know what you think! And if you have any questions, I’d be more than happy to answer them 

[feanor]

>Let us tell the truth. In the fourteenth century, women made sixty cents to a man’s dollar. What does she earn now? Sixty-nine cents? Seventy?

All but about five cents of the wage gap can be attributed to factors other than discrimination. On average, women choose majors that lead into lower paying jobs, they work fewer hours, are less willing to take on hazardous jobs or travel or relocate, and are more likely to take non-profit or government jobs. In some areas, women have actually overtaken men: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0334472920070803

>In the nineteenth century, many of our great writers were dealing with the fact that marriage, while ideally a wonderful institution, is often a burden on women.

Marriage can also be a burden on men. In family courts in many western countries, men are presumed guilty until proven innocent. In child custody, women are often assumed to automatically be better parents and given custody by default.

>And it is more acceptable to hate women than it is to hate African Americans.

Do you have anything to back that up?

>And mostly, I wish they both would address issues of class and poverty.

Absolutely. I'm of the (radical?) opinion that being poor can be more of a detriment than gender or race.

>And, as shallow as others may think it, I must support the female business woman, the female candidate, if I can.

What do you think about African-Americans with similar sentiments about Obama?

[Gunfighter]

I think that any black person who votes for Obama because he is black is every bit as poorly informed as the woman who votes for Clinton because she is a woman... or as the white person who votes for Clinton because she is white.