Gloria Steinem had a compelling op-ed in the New York Times this morning that reminded me a lot of one of Ennis’ previous posts about women leaders in rural India. First, some excerpts from “Women Are Never Frontrunners:”
THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.
Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?
If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy. [Link]
<
p>Of course, there is another equally compelling argument for why the media “gives Clinton a hard time” and why the voters are so quick to discount her considerable experience, to the point of bringing her to tears. Many voters (like the majority in Iowa) may just want a clean break from the past. They don’t care whether Clinton is more capable than Obama or not. They don’t care if she’d be “a better President on day one.” They just want to rid themselves of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton monarchy and the baggage that comes with it. Perhaps, as Obama says, offering people hope and possibility and having the ability to bring new blood into the broken political process will make up for the experience and insider-Washington-knowledge needed to survive and be an effective President in Washington. There is a lot of credibility behind that argument. Then again, Steinem might also be right:
If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits. [Link]
<
p>And that brings us to Ennis’s post and the study
by Esther Duflo and Petia Topalova about women elected to local office in rural India:
Using opinion surveys and data on local “public goods”–like schools, roads, and water pumps–Duflo and Topalova find that the villages headed by women invested in more services that benefited the entire community than did those with gender-neutral elections, nearly all of which were won by men. But as the opinion polls showed, for all their effectiveness, the women’s governance was literally a thankless effort, with the new leaders getting lower approval ratings than their male counterparts.
Why study the experiences of Indian villagers to understand the costs and benefits of female leadership? Countries that come closest to gender parity in government, like Sweden and Finland, are economically advanced democracies with universal health care, child care, and generous maternity and paternity leave policies. Contrast this with the list of nations with zero women in national legislatures–Kyrgyzstan and Saudi Arabia, for example–and the pattern becomes clear: Women in government are associated with lots of good things… [Link]
<
p>Is it any wonder why Clinton might have cried? It is entirely possible that she has a lot in common with a rural Indian woman 🙂
First, the encouraging news from India’s social experiment with female leadership. Duflo and Topalova found that communities with women as pradhans had larger quantities of key public services overall. Nor was quality sacrificed for quantity–facilities in the women-led villages were of at least as high quality on average as in the communities with traditional male leadership. The greatest improvement was in drinking water, the public amenity found to be most valued by women in earlier research (PDF)–with 30 percent more taps and hand pumps in the women-pradhan villages. So while the female pradhans were working for the general good, they were working particularly hard to provide the services valued by their fellow women. They were also less corrupt–villagers with female-headed councils were 25 percent less likely to report having to pay bribes to access basic services like getting ration cards or receiving medical attention.
Now, the bad news. India’s female pradhans were remarkably unappreciated for their efforts. Despite the objective upgrades in village amenities, both men and women living in villages headed by women expressed lower satisfaction with public services. This was true even for water–the level of dissatisfaction was 13 percent higher in women-led communities. In fact, there was even greater dissatisfaction about health facilities, a public service not even controlled by the local village council… [Link]
As of the time of this posting, Clinton is up in the New Hampshire primary with a 40% to 35% lead over Obama (with roughly 30% of the vote counted). If she wins (a huge comeback based on all New Hampshire polls up until today), people are going to ask if the tears were for real, and if that’s what gave her the edge. They are also going to use exit polling data to figure out which group of voters were most responsible for her victory. Even if she loses but comes close, people are still going to ask what caused the “surge.” Maybe, just maybe, the women out there knew that even if the tears were fake, the gender bias may be real.
A majority of Americans voted for Bush in 2004, doesn’t that make the Iraq war right by that count?
So past neglect justifies future neglect? I can’t believe we gave women the right to vote when the world had been chugging along for centuries just fine without that inconvenience.
If we’re just indulging in rhetorical slights, this is the point where I’d say “unless you are taking the Osama bin Laden approach and claiming that these leaders have a case – that would be funny).
I said Chris Rock, not Paris Hilton.
I’m sorry, that came across harsher than intended. My apologies.
A majority of Americans voted for Bush in 2004, doesn’t that make the Iraq war right by that count?
No, because the war wasn’t the “issue” that people voted on, according to exit polls. Even if so, comparing a group of people supporting/not supporting an active decision made by their government, to a reaction by a people who have no choice in government is a bit of a stretch.
So past neglect justifies future neglect? I can’t believe we gave women the right to vote when the world had been chugging along for centuries just fine without that inconvenience.
No, but lack of future neglect isn’t as noble and benevolent as you’d like it to be.
this is the point where I’d say “unless you are taking the Osama bin Laden approach and claiming that these leaders have a case
Now you’r really channeling the bill oreilly. Iraq and Osama Bin Laden are in cahoots? Well, because they’re both dark skinned.right?
I said Chris Rock, not Paris Hilton
For a comedio-phile like yourself, Chris Rock is Paris Hilton.
yes, because, i claimed that her experience as first lady is her chief qualification to run. oh look, here is the smoking gun:
You’re right, I missed this, however, all she’s doing is highlighting her time at the white house, and I could easily argue her decision to support an ill-timed and ill-planned war, is exactly that, lack of experience, and engaging in group think.
port, this is not fair to most of the critiques against HRC’s “record.” The argument is not that she is less qualified or unqualified — it is that she cannot claim she is MORE qualified, which is what she does by framing herself as the “candidate of experience.” During her stump speeches she has absolutely conflated her time as first lady with Bill’s presidency. This is wholly inaccurate. As has been stated by both detractors and supporters, she has ample professional experience, but she knows that if it came down to an assessment of time spent in public office she does not look very different from Obama.
Here are things I think she can take credit for (this is by no means all-encompassing): her tireless children’s rights advocacy, her legal career, her experience on state and federal committees, her crucial role in her husband’s elections to public office, her reinterpretation of the role of the first lady, her 1.5 terms as Senator. Here are things she cannot take credit for: Anything her husband pushed as official policy in his role as President (e.g. the economy, welfare reform, Social Security, the budget and national debt).
i feel like throwing in my 2 cents…
i respect gloria steinem, but her article annoyed me. trying to argue sexism is worse than racism is not a productive argument.
Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).
these things she cites may be true, but what is she implying–that black men are in a better social standing than white women? as a group, black men get more screwed over in western society than anyone else.
Please, even if you discount the effect of propaganda and the disproportionate weight that people might give when comparing current misery to past experiences in the kite flying paradise of Saddam’s Iraq (cf. Michael Moore), that speaks to botched execution, not an immoral war.
Future neglect isn’t obviously noble, benevolent, moral, or right either.
Yes, your interpretation is exactly right.
I’m no fan of the Rock, but even I’d say that he would be Paris Hilton only if I were a comedio-dephile.
I fully agree, which is why I think Obama’s snark about her not being secretary of the treasury was particularly apt.
I think she did bring that up during the debate on Saturday night (probably when Edwards and Obama were attacking her)
Good grief! Is she going to cry everytime there’s a crisis and things get a little tough? Our enemies are going to love having her around. We need Rudy more than ever. All he needs to do is show a video of her crying in his commercials. that will make this country come to its senses.
Future neglect isn’t obviously noble, benevolent, moral, or right either.
Neither is current neglect (and ‘neglect’ as some kind of euphamism for invasion?) of oil-less regimes runned by dictators set up by previous US policy actions. Look, any attempt to cast the Iraq 03 invasion as some kind of moral action to aid the Iraqi’s is just plain hypocrisy. And you try to cover that hypocrisy by harping on Russia/China/France’s less than noble intention for not supporting (which I agree with, but dont think this somehow nobilizes the US action)
Please, even if you discount the effect of propaganda and the disproportionate weight that people might give when comparing current misery to past experiences in the kite flying paradise of Saddam’s Iraq (cf. Michael Moore),
Again, a single Michael Moore film doesn’t constitute propoganda. He himself has stated that neither he nor anyone else is going to believe that Iraq pre invasion was some heaven on earth, rather it wasn’t the ravishing hell that team bush (and you) claim it to be, and whatever ravishing hell did exist… was contributed in part by US policy (sanctions, military aggression during the clinton years, and previous supporting of the Iranians & Iraqis)
I’m no fan of the Rock,
because he speaks the truth.
that speaks to botched execution, not an immoral war.
You’re assuming that wars are in general fought for “moral” reasons. The US supported the mujahadeen in the 1980s to deliver a blow to the soviets, not to help the afghanis. It was executed cleanly, but when it came time to nation build the US cut and run. (which in a sense they are doing now, by letting the south go to the Shiites and focusing on protecting the oil reserves rather than building infrastructure) So even in your “moral war” paradigm, it can never be an unbotched execution if morality is never a part of it in the first place.
HMF,Exactly. That is a great reason to not support HRC, and I think those are very valid criticisms.
I fully agree. Although Clinton gets too much credit for an economy that seemed poised for growth anyway, and for reasons that had little to do with whoever was in power. And welfare reform in the Clinton era (TANF+Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act) gets mixed reviews at best from the analysis I’ve come across. In the speech I saw yesterday, I did not see her bring up her stint as First Lady (if this was deliberate, then by your and HMF’s accounts, it would be a good move), and perhaps she would do best by re-positioning herself as an independently worthy candidate. She does keep using the “I’ve been an agent of change for the past 35 years” line in her speeches/debate as well as the “since-when-is-experience-a-liability” rant quite vociferously.
In United states – A female president before an african american male president? I am not likely to see this in my life time..And I am really quite young 🙂 Although, I do wish my thinking is proven wrong.
The following article and its comments thread summarize the views of we haters quite nicely. Best read while sipping sherry and listening to Elvis Costello’s “Tramp the Dirt Down” or Morrissey’s “Margaret on the Guillotine”: http://brightonregencylabourparty.blogspot.com/2005/10/20-reasons-why-i-hate-thatcher.html
Yes, that’s exactly what women do. They get their periods and ruin empires.
Be careful with where you’re going with such enlightened thought.
Hillary Clinton is nearly sixty years old. She still has periods? Wow, that does make her special.
But not this special.
Sorry, I forgot to accentuate the desi angle.
Yes, that’s exactly what women do. They get their periods and ruin empires.
It is not far fetched as it sounds. The feminization of culture leads to privileging feelings over substance which leads to demagogues manipulating the feelings of mobs. The end result is dictatorship as happened in the Roman empire.
Here is yet another example of gender bias 🙂
118 · Vince said
It is indeed far-fetched, not to mention ignorant and offensive. You know, Bush doesn’t strike me as being remotely feminine and he’s damned good at manipulating mobs.
Abhi: That’s a splendid example of gender equality.
You know, Bush doesn’t strike me as being remotely feminine and he’s damned good at manipulating mobs.
maybe it’s sufficient, not necessary.
If you are a troll, well done indeed. If you’re not, can you give me some other historical examples? Are you saying that many dictators’ obsession with outward and cultural manifestations of masculinity (e.g. Ceaucescu, Napoleon etc etc) springs from their reaction to a “feminized” culture?
interesting point of view – do you have any other examples to support this controversial statement.
If you are a troll, well done indeed. If you’re not, can you give me some other historical examples? Are you saying that many dictators’ obsession with outward and cultural manifestations of masculinity (e.g. Ceaucescu, Napoleon etc etc) springs from their reaction to a “feminized” culture?
I was not referring to Modern dictators. I was referring to the transformation of the roman republic into the roman empire. Napoleon was a product of the bourgeoise’s effort to overthrow the power of the aristocratic and priestly class. Napoleon was a figure in the mold of Alexander. The evolution of the West into a roman type empire is probably a few generations away.
This statement I get. I do not, however, I think that the “privileging feelings over substance” is the sole preserve of women. I’m just trying to understand your argument, Vince – most historical dictators have been men. So you’re saying that a culture in which “feelings are privileged over substance” (which in itself seems difficult to determine normatively) leads to people who are easily swayed by demagogues? Are the demagogues reacting to the “feminization” of the culture? Or are they symptomatic of it? ** Do you think that men and women reason differently? As a result of socialization? Or genetics? When can we consider a culture “feminized”? (e.g. would your definition, for instance, call the Amazons or a tribe of fierce warrior women a “feminized” culture?)You have to tell a much more detailed story and provide more definitions.
I didn’t see this posted above, hopefully, I’m not rehashing. There is a strong op-ed piece by Maureen Dowd in today’s NYTimes, referencing Steinem’s Article and discussing Senator Clinton’s moment. Some of the quotes from the article are as follows:
Gloria Steinem wrote in The Times yesterday that one of the reasons she is supporting Hillary is that she had “no masculinity to prove.†But Hillary did feel she needed to prove her masculinity. That was why she voted to enable W. to invade Iraq without even reading the National Intelligence Estimate and backed the White House’s bellicosity on Iran.
Yet, in the end, she had to fend off calamity by playing the female victim, both of Obama and of the press. Hillary has barely talked to the press throughout her race even though the Clintons this week whined mightily that the press prefers Obama.
Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink. The people from Hope are arguing against hope.
At her victory party, Hillary was like the heroine of a Lifetime movie, a woman in peril who manages to triumph. Saying that her heart was full, she sounded the feminist anthem: “I found my own voice.â€
Yowza, who needs enemies when you have friends like this. I wonder if the Democrats will have anything left after they’re done beating each other up.
It’s gonna be either Romney or McCain next year. The dem contest is strictly for entertainment value and to support the advertising industry. 8 more years of repubs yeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhh!
This was the same exact point I have made on MYDD repeatedly.
There I was doing a good job of refraining from commenting on this thread, until provoked enough to say–no, this year is going to be a Democratic (Clinton or Obama, I was too quick to think the latter on Amardeep’s earlier post) blow-out (maybe closer if McCain gets it for the GOP, but I bet (1) he doesn’t and (2) he loses even if he does), which will set things up nicely for–drum-roll–Bobby Jindal 2012!!
Well, he’d better make sure to get to the White House before the second coming, which will, of course mark the end of the world as Bobby believes it.
So, if Bobby J makes a run, will we be asking the question- “Is he desi enough?”
Just when I thought Dowd couldn’t sink any lower, she manages to. So low as to quote a prototypical battle of the sexes movie to bolster her case: As Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn in “Adam’s Rib,†“Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.â€
Disgusting. With women like this, who needs men?
To be clear, I was being facetious in my remark – just answering an Edwards low blow with my own. While it is convenient to throw $500 haircut topics around, other candidates spend far far more on their campaigns, and who is to say that every one of those expenses was vetted carefully, and there is not egregious waste there?
Did you also think that John Edwards voted for the war because he felt that his perfect haircut made him look like too much of a sissy? And that Obama was against the war because he wanted to play against the type that black men tend to be naturally aggressive and tend to pick fights?
Why is it reasonable to ask a woman if she wears diamonds or pearls, scrutinize whether she looks haggard, or believe that her every action is designed purely because she can show that she can fight too?
Ms. Steinem makes some valid points in her op-ed piece and so did Maureen Dowd whose piece was #2 in the Times’ most emailed pieces. I also liked Slate’s rebuttal a lot.
It’s unfortunate that the society that Ms. Steinem so gloriously imagined for women, has yet to materialize. The fact that I feel guilted to vote for Ms. Clinton because she is a sister, shows we are not there yet. My vote is still for Obama.
Steinem is famous for her saying: “A woman without a man is a like a fish without a bicycle.” Now let’s apply that to Hill without Bill, shall we?
2 · Abhi said
My mother worked as a public health & sanitation worker in rural India for 30 years with UNICEF. Her comment about villages with women pradhans, was that democratic processes and public fora were also strengthened and used more often, with less fear of consequeneces, with women in leadership roles. As a result, she often saw more complaints registered about everything in these villages. In this context the lower satisfaction ratings may actually track an uptick in developmental goals, much like the low ratings given to government by Swedes. Show me a Swede who wants to change citizenship though, and I’ll show you this. 🙂
I tried to read all the comments since I’m entering this conversation late, so forgive me if I’m repeating what someone else said already.
Many people think that the idea that gender is hurting women in the United States (and some others) is virtually indisputable–one small example is wage gaps, but it extends far beyond that to domestic violence, eating disorders, body image issues, etc. I’d point out also that in a broader sense, this doesn’t just hurt women, but also men and people of other genders as well a society as a whole. Personally, I even agree with her that, right now, it would likely be harder to elect someone who wants to do something about this problem than someone who wants to do something about the race problem.
What’s objectionable about Steinem’s op-ed is that it takes this reality and then writes about it in a way that’s so logically disingenuous and politically divisive that it’s reactionary and almost insulting to people who nominally care about the issues she’s talking about.
A lot of people noted the “Black men got the vote first” argument; but what about the comparison in the first paragraph that she leads with, sets the tone with? I think one person pointed this out, but to put the problem more overtly: Why is she comparing someone who would be perceived as a Black woman to someone who would be perceived as a Black man, in this context? That’s dishonest! The comparison in the context is if you’re going to be fair is: a White woman to a Black man. (I’m using “Black” here to stand in as “perceived as Black” since perceptions are the basis of many of the social effects of race, in my opinion).
People who are sympathetic to gender politics and race politics and who think that there is a real symbolic importance to the demographics of the Presidency will to varying degree be torn by this choice, which can be happy, or a site of productive conversation, or it can turn into what Steinem is doing. Some of us, I would imagine, have some familiarty with what its like to feel discrimianted against on several demographic levels; one of the worst feelings I have is when someone tries to force me to choose one or the other, and that’s what I think Steinem is contributing to, but on the level of a Presidential primary! Trying to polarize the situation in is really abhorrent.
Of course there’s also the question of why she chose to focus on Presidential elections so narrowly. As much as I will be thrilled as a born-and-bred American that my backwards country has managed to elect either a woman or a Black person as president, I know how deluded I am 🙂 If Obama or Clinton were to win, that would make 1 Black President or 1 Woman out of 40 something; the rest of them are all straight, White, male, Protestants except for one…who was a straight, White, male, Catholic (and don’t get me wrong…that was a big deal with the history of racism and xenophobia against the Irish in this country).
I mean, my own mother and father are/were constitutionally barred from holding the Presidency. Why am I so invested in this? 🙂
I hope not! Maybe it just means you made it past 25.
135 · coffeescoop said
I do agree that Steinem’s feminist paradise has yet to materialize; And her opinions are not hip anymore, she’s too second wave to be relevant today etc etc, but I think her piece has been given short shrift on this thread. Yes, she begins the article in the most tendentious way possible, but when she gets down to the end she makes some fair points (and I think fairly trite/non-controversial ones at that).
She categorically denies that she is advocation an “ism-off,” i.e., “who has it harder?” She clarified (and this is my reading, so def. not the last word on the piece) she would vote for HRC, because Steinem feels that she is a capable leader in her judgment, but would go on to support Obama were he to win the primary.
The main claims she makes:
A woman could not adopt the same oratorical style as Obama and WJC and be taken seriously (We can discuss if this is true. In recent times, I can’t think of any woman politician who has gotten away with being ‘touchy-feely,’ instead they position themselves as gritty and tough women. Think Ann Richards, Thatcher, Indira Gandhi. Exceptions: Sigolene Royale, maybe Pelosi. I don’t know enough about Merkel).
That young women today willfully blind themselves to the gender gaps and glass ceilings, and because they have been raised in generally nurturing environments, and have a false sense of complacency that the gender politics issues have been resolved.
That Obama can talk of the struggles of being a person of color, and (I think rightly so) perceived as someone who overcame adversity, made significant achievement, and may be seen as someone who embodies the victories of the civil rights era [I think Steinem thinks this is great, and hopes that her audience recognizes this as well]. But she is also concerned that HRC cannot position herself in quite the same way. If she talks about her breaking the glass ceiling as a woman, or her struggles with adversity [and I would argue that her politicization as a young woman, were deeply influenced by her inter-related Vietnam War, Civil Rights, and feminist activism], she would come across as shrill and complaining. Steinem worries that we as a society are unable to combat the latent and hidden perniciousness of the gender gap (In contrast, the race gap is much more obvious and perhaps, an even bigger disadvantage for people of color). The fact remains that HRC speaking about her actions related gender issues, will be seen as “playing the gender card,” as if that is just a political trump card, and not a real achievement or accomplishment. I think it is our asymmetrical way of dealing with these issues is what is bothering Steinem, rather than a question of who had it harder. I know I’m not doing a very good job of articulating this, but I hope someone can elaborate this a bit better.
That HRC’s progressive legal and advocacy work is not recognized enough for being different from the Washington status quo.
And that if women vote for HRC, they always have to justify that they are doing it not because she is a woman. Steinem wants us to say that I’m voting for her, because I think she is good and I recognize that she is woman and has worked a little bit harder to get where she is. No one should have to keep qualifying ten times over that they are voting for Clinton regardless of her gender. Historically, no man ever has to defend himself by saying, “I’m voting for that man, because he is a great politician, not because he’s a guy.” Women who vote for HRC think that they have to provide that disclaimer.
And this claim, which she makes and which is (trite) but one with which I think all of us will wholeheartedly agree based on the comments that I have seen upthread:
138 · Saurav said
Not yet 🙂 but I’m partying like it’s my birthday.
137 · Saurav said
Very nice critique, Saurav. It articulates some of feelings about the piece very cogently.
Very nice points, portmanteau.
I might agree with Steinem (Stain ’em? I hardly even knew ’em!) in the abstract, but it discounts the presence of, for lack of a better phrase, a “female Obama”. There have been many black politicians before Obama, but they have been perceived more as channeling “black rage” (except for Alan Keyes, who just channels rage) rather than “black hope” (pardon my triteness). Of course, I realize that I am floating a relatively unfalsifiable hypothetical, because “naturals” (one of the few turns of Dowd’s phrase I agreed with) of the caliber of Obama come probably once in a generation.
That said, it is probably smart of Obama to run before the actual dirty business of politics and getting laws through tarnishes the unblemished image of hope and change that he so actively projects. Even in his limited senate career, he’s had to make compromises (signing bills that don’t exactly push his ideas – for example, approving war funding hand over first, and not signing documents that he partially agrees with – for example, the Iran letter to Bush) even though he’s spent a non trivial fraction of his senate term missing sessions while in the heat of campaigning. I bring these up not to make the case that he’s a liar or a hypocrite, but that his “audacity” might have to be tempered in the face of the cold hard realism of law making. This, and the fact that I don’t weight his 2002 war opinion as heavily as a superior indicator of either prescience or morality, are what make me relatively indifferent between Obama and HRC.
I would have agreed with this statement even more wholeheartedly if she hadn’t chosen to say “We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.†this at the end. Just the first part would’ve been right.
Even discounting the fairly astonishing claim about Iraq not being hell, neither the fact that the US was a contributor to the “ravishing hell” (as opposed to the “ravishing heaven” with 72 virgins, I assume?) nor the existence of other cruel dictatorships is an argument against the Iraq war (if anything, you might choose to claim that the US’ previous responsibility made it incumbent on it to undo past actions).
Look, I never claimed that Bush’s motives for the Iraq war were moral, in fact, I specifically stated the opposite. I also don’t think HRC supported the war for moral reasons, it was probably much more that it seemed the thing to do for all the Democrats who didn’t want to appear weak on terror and were swept away by the superior rhetoric machine and bullhorn of the Bushies. I am only saying that neither of these automatically makes the decision not to support the war moral in any way. (The only non isolationist argument that I have read that I think is reasonable is that Iraq would distract from the serious task in Afghanistan. The current reality certainly makes that clear, but I don’t know how to tease apart disastrous execution from unavoidable realities. What is immoral, though, is all those people advocating immediate pullout, or some variant thereof, with a myopic eye focused purely on American votes, American lives, and American taxpayer money).
I am not assuming anything of that sort.
There are very pragmatic reasons – blowback – why nation building is very much in the interests of politicians even in the absence of any guiding morality. The real problem is that blowback happens on time scales longer than are relevant with election cycles, who is content to take the convenient short term decision and leave somebody else to clean up the mess. See the oh-so-honorable politicians who are currently trying to outdo each other on troop withdrawal timelines and on leaving Iraqis to hold the bag.
Portmanteau,
I think you did a better job than Steinem in phrasing the issue. Had she approached it with your even-handed (maybe, sensitive is a better word – but that might be too feminine for some) approach, more people would have been receptive to what she had to say.
After reading your post, I reread Steinem’s article and with that prism, I was more receptive. However, I think Steinem also tries to blame Senator Clinton’s divisiveness on gender. This may have been hashed out above, I apologize if I am. But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
That implies that as a male voter have this inherent prejudice (because of Senator Clinton’s gender) and therefore, I am supposed to feel bad enough about it that I vote for her because of her gender. That indictment is hardly fair or just. While there are many admirable and great qualities about Senator Clinton, she simply doesn’t grab a crowd the way Senator Obama does or the way her husband did (that’s solely my perception, others are free to disagree). John Mccain, for that matter, has the same “je ne sais quoi”. That’s not to say these individuals should be elected solely because they are likeable but at the same turn, it doesn’t meant I or any other voter should have to discount her perceived inability to communicate or unify. As mentioned above, she does come off as cold and calculating and also beholden to certain elements in her party. I don’t believe that has anything to do with her gender. I would say the same thing of Giuliani or Romney. I have no problem voting for Senator Clinton because of her qualifications, but it is fair of me to worry about how she can unify a fractured electorate or how will she build non-partisan support for her policies when she has this polarizing effect. The same critiques I would give to Giuliani or Romney. I don’t see how that has anything to do with gender.
Rahul, in my (perhaps more charitable than deserved, but I doubt it) reading, she says this in the context of her article to mean that it’s okay to vote for HRC, to be proud of that fact, and stop adding a “regardless of because she is a woman” disclaimer each time you express your support for her. It’s a polemical approach no doubt, one that makes it highly likely to be interpreted wrongly, but Steinem wants to assert that it is legitimate (i.e. one reason to support HRC) for both men and women to vote HRC because of her favorable record as a woman leader (as opposed to “in spite of”), whether or not she [HRC] explicitly claims her victories as victories for the feminist cause. Such a person embodies characteristics are positives for leaders. Note that it would be alienating for HRC to adopt this campaign policy (ie paint herself a poster-girl, uh, poster-woman for the feminist cause).
I agree that as independent assertion, without the article to precede it, I would personally think Steinem could/should legitimately only say this: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president.” And it makes for a better sound byte 🙂
145 · Jangali Janwar said
Absolutely spot on. Steinem should say that some of HRC’s divisiveness is not a result of gender. To treat HRC as more than a caricature, as more than an embodiment of feminist victory, would be to paint a nuanced picture of both her qualities and her flaws. [If I were a spin-doctor, I would say as an election tactic, “So what if HRC doesn’t have charm? She is your typical frazzled busy mom, whaddaya expect :)? She is extremely competent, and look what happened the last time we put a charming nincompoop in the White House?”] In fact, France’s Sigolene Royale, was able to be so personally captivating, and just like Obama, drew the youth back into French politics (even despite the huge racial), and fully took advantage of her charisma and feminine image. This is something HRC has been unable to do so far.
Me thinks Senator Clinton should hire portmanteau.
Given their mutual love of cadence, it will be a natural synergy.
Baby, it will be for mutual love alright, a mutual love of this body, er, body woman.