I find it amusing how people who wouldn’t dream of identifying as a feminist themselves think they know what “a feminist” thinks about anything.
First of all, we have differing opinions. It kind of goes with the philosophy of the thing, you know? Women actually having brains and using them to consider and judge based on the evidence? However, I think there are commonalities that some who don’t really understand feminism may not grasp when it comes to why many feminists would back Hillary, even those of us that disagree with some of her actions, like how she voted on the despicable Iraq War and the despicable (and revoltingly named) Patriot Act.
I like to think of myself as not being terribly naive about politics (although I often wonder sometimes about other leftist Democrats), and one of the realizations that comes when one follows presidential politics is that you’d better be playing to win or you need to get out of the sandbox. So while I may disagree with some of her compromises (a flag burning amendment??? Come on, Hillary!), I know they were made during one of the most vicious and repressive ultra-conservative (stink-pig Rovian) political periods in the history of this country. And I know that the reality of a two-party political system is that you gotta make compromises in order to get something. And what those compromises end up being depends upon the state of the Washington that Ms. Smith found when she went there. Have you looked at, or sniffed, the place in the last several decades? As I’ve said before, it takes a strong stomach to take a long hard gander. And you don’t get elected into high office there by leaning too far left. When it comes down to it, if I wanted to make a by-the-book vote on my ideals, it would be Kucinich. Unfortunately, he’s not available anymore. What a surprise.
I don’t really doubt where Hillary Clinton stands on the issues dear to my feminist heart. But there’s something more, something much bigger about her, and something bigger is exactly what a viable presidential candidate should have. While some of us may not find her appropriately progressive according to the liberal playbook, the fact is that she’s not just made it into the big leagues, she’s helping to define what that is. That’s the kind of person she is, she breaks ground – and she’s capable of breaking that ultimate glass ceiling. In order to come to that conclusion, I’ve only needed to take a look at her life. Want to know how many women were at Yale Law in 1969? She’s championed children’s, women’s and migrant workers’ rights and worked to create a Violence Against Women program at the Dept. of Justice in the '90’s. She’s always been a smart, ambitious and extremely capable woman in a man’s world and I believe that this has taught her what it’ll take to beat the gender game. The best that feminists had available when Clinton took office was to admire that his wife was the first presidential spouse to have serious academic and professional credentials that she actually used to excel in just about everything she’d ever done. She earned a vigorous shake of my head when she spoke out against being the presidential Stepford Wife model and refused to ‘bake cookies’ or stare adoringly (and vacantly) into ‘daddy’s’ eyes for the camera. (And oh, them Kansas churchgoers sure vilified her for that, didn’t they?)
In fact, no small part of my admiration for Bill Clinton had to do with his choice of a wife. To me, that said volumes about what he believed in. And when the time came when that wife was faced with the choice to ‘stand by her man’, she did. I’ve always believed that when she made that choice, it was because she knew who she was, she knew what the game was and she knew what she wanted in life. And no man with his pants unzipped was going to take that away from her. That crap is long due to be over for women.
It takes an amazingly strong individual to endure what she has over the past couple of decades. But the point is, she hasn’t just endured, she’s thrived. Despite the fact that many powerful people who are white, male and rich don’t like her, most likely because she knows how to play their game when she needs to, but still will never really be one of them. I think they know she’s electable and that there are a lot of us women who know it, too. Why else would they cling so dearly to to the “she can’t be elected” mantra when her numbers show otherwise? Why else portray her as an ‘evil witch-but-with-a-b’? If anyone believes that’s not pure, unadulterated, good old American sexism, then I’ve got a bridge in Hillary’s state to sell you.
Many feminists understand that having a woman president is a big deal. I’ve never expected that the first female candidate would be anything other than a Democrat and I’m comfortable that this one is being the best Democrat possible in order to get elected in a terribly polarized society. I may not like that I’ve had to hold my nose on a few of her votes, but it’s nothing compared to how long and hard I’ve had to hold it sometimes during the past 25 years. And I already know that Senator Clinton has been highly esteemed for her work, by both sides of the aisle. So of course she’ll be an excellent President, should she get to actually sit behind the Big Desk this time. This feminist has little doubt about that.
[i]“I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life. I’m a big believer in women making the choices that are right for them. The work that I have done as a professional, as a public advocate, has been aimed at trying to assure that women can make the choices they should make.”
“There cannot be true democracy unless women’s voices are heard. There cannot be true democracy unless women are given the opportunity to take responsibility for their own lives. There cannot be true democracy unless all citizens are able to participate fully in the lives of their country.”
“In too many places, the suffering of women is defined as trivial, explained away as a cultural phenomenon; perhaps it is for this reason that women do not receive proper healthcare, including access to family planning.”
“When I am talking about ‘It Takes a Village’, I’m obviously not talking just about or even primarily about geographical villages any longer, but about the network of relationships and values that do connect us and binds us together.
No government can love a child, and no policy can substitute for a family’s care. But at the same time, government can either support or undermine families as they cope with moral, social and economic stresses of caring for children.”[/i]