Lord knows I love Courtney Martin, who contributes to Feministing. But if I hear one more feminist wonder aloud if being a feminist means they HAVE to support Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman, well, my goddamn brain is going to fall out.
Martin frames her concerns thusly:
“Yet one question keeps lurking menacingly beneath the surface of my excitement: am I obligated, as a young feminist, to support Hillary Clinton for president?
Exploring the answer gets me into a political twister game of identities. As an engaged citizen, I am obligated to comprehensively review and analyze the candidates’ values and plans, their histories and qualities, and then choose the one I believe to be the most enlightened leader. Though I sometimes distrust the electoral machine, which makes it harder and harder to distinguish candidates’ real ideas and passions from their fat-pocketed spin master’s magic, I find my ways.
As my mother’s daughter, I feel obligated to support and vote for Hillary Clinton. For the first time in history, a woman has a real chance at moving into the Oval Office.”
If you want to vote for Hillary, do so because her record really isn’t all that bad. Do it because she opposed the surge in Iraq, and because she opened the Office of Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. Do it because she’s advocated for universal healthcare, because she has experience in the White House, because she hasn’t been a bad senator. See, Senator Clinton has lots of nifty qualifications besides her womanhood. I despise the insinuation that feminists must blindly follow their female leaders or that to feminists, Hillary’s uterus is her greatest asset.
I do understand Courtney Martin’s point, and I’m excited about the possibility of a woman in the White House, too. But I think framing Hillary’s candidacy largely in terms of her gender is a mistake. If Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, I will vote for her, though I may do it somewhat grudgingly. Although she did recently oppose the troop surge in Iraq, until then, she adhered to Bush’s insane “stay the course” rhetoric. She participated in the distractionary “flag desicration” debacle. She partnered with Joe Lieberman against violence in video games. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died, as did thousands of American military personnel and contractors.
I don’t think Hillary is the worst candidate in the world, but, again, I’m tired of her candidacy being framed in this way. I’d love to vote for a woman for president, but I’d rather wait until the time comes that I can do it confidently, and with a clean consience.
Well, you can always analogize her to Obama. If it’s un-feminist not to support Clinton, then it’s racist not to support Obama, which means everyone in the US is either a racist or a sexist.
Think of it this way: how many black people said blacks are obligated to support Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice?
I wouldn’t put Clinton in the same camp with Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, but she’s definitely not the Democratic candidate I’m hoping for.
The only reason I can see for supporting Clinton on the basis that she is a woman would be if you thought that having a female president would make an important difference to the situation of women in society purely by setting an example.
This is a valid consideration, along with everything else. Of course, “everything else” may largely drown out this consideration; the probable strength of the difference made is debatable.
Actually, I don’t think she’s very different from Rice on foreign policy - she just has to pretend she’s a liberal from time to time.
Cool site. Thanks:-)