thoughts about the primary contest

Jun 05, 2008 15:13

The thing is, I think Hillary Clinton would have won if she hadn't been a woman. And I'm both glad that she lost and dismayed simultaneously ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 18

roomforhonesty June 5 2008, 19:44:25 UTC
I think it's interesting, in a way, because from a historic perspective it makes sense. Blacks were first to get voting rights, and then women. I think it's easier for people to make sense of the racial dimensions of our society.

One major problem in terms of how gender is perceived in our society is the fact that most people have rigidly defined, "common sense" understandings of what men and women are. The idea that women are emotional, for instance, is considered "factual". It's a natural part of what women are. Race still has this problem to an extent, of course, but I think it's a lot trickier with gender. I have all kinds of theories about this, of course (this is more or less what my independent study was on) but I won't go into it too much more.

So, it is frustrating. But hopefully it'll just be a matter of time before we have a woman president. Better yet - a non-white woman president!!

Reply

shetan83 June 6 2008, 00:35:34 UTC
Wait, I thought women got voting rights in the 1920s?

Reply

moriendumest June 6 2008, 01:23:14 UTC
Yes, August 26 1920. And black men got suffrage in 1870.

Reply

shetan83 June 6 2008, 01:28:01 UTC
I guess I was thinking of de facto black suffrage vs de jure.

Reply


devinmcgeehan4 June 5 2008, 21:01:43 UTC
As student of history, I tend to be weary of the "what ifs" or "had it been this way" because I think Clinton's candidacy made perfect sense given her historically contingent position. I don't think anyone else could have competed with Obama. Clinton continues to be too present on the American political scene ( ... )

Reply

moriendumest June 6 2008, 01:20:31 UTC
See my reply to shetan83 below. Does that make things any clearer? I don't think what you're saying in any way goes against what I'm saying; in fact I think it's a perfect illustration of it.

Reply


shetan83 June 6 2008, 00:42:17 UTC
Hrm.

Okay, let's see. My thoughts are that, if Clinton hadn't been a woman, she wouldn't even BE a Democratic candidate. Because she used her experience/fame as First Lady to springboard into her career in the Senate and then as a presidential candidate. So if she hadn't been a woman, she wouldn't have been first lady.

If H. Rodham had been born Harry Rodham, maaaybe H.R. still would have ended up in the Senate. Who knows? But as your friend said above, Hillary's political and gender persona are inseparable. Perhaps just as her race and class are inseparable. So I think it might be... hrm, unfruitful to try and separate the two?

Reply

moriendumest June 6 2008, 01:19:07 UTC
Hmm. I think I just did a bad job articulating my point. My point is not so much that if SHE were a man she would have won--clearly, if she were a man, she wouldn't have been First Lady, and it would all have been different ( ... )

Reply

shetan83 June 6 2008, 01:31:47 UTC
Yep, much clearer.

I dunno, a lot of what I hear on CNN was that Clinton ran the wrong campaign. She ran a campaign of experience in "a year of change", is the soundbyte that I keep hearing.

Out of curiosity, if it had been Gore vs Obama, or Kerry vs Obama, who do you think would have won, and why?

Reply

moriendumest June 6 2008, 14:41:37 UTC
Right, but would she have been criticized for running that kind of campaign if she'd been male, or rather, would a male candidate running that kind of campaign have been as criticized for it as she was? I think that that particular criticism of her is just an excuse ( ... )

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

moriendumest June 6 2008, 14:47:14 UTC
Yeah, that's a really good point. I think that's definitely true. And I do think that the media's turning on her, whether consciously for them or unconsciously, was largely based on gender. Not that they were like "she's a woman! rar! knock her down!" but that the things she did were "unwomanly" and so therefore she's somehow not fit to be President. (But then it's a Catch-22, because people don't *actually* want a "womanly" woman to be President, because she won't have the "strength" or "resolve" or whatever it is that Presidents need to have, because "womanly" women don't have those qualities... *sigh*)

Oh, and PS, I'm definitely planning on coming to church since it's my last time in Saratoga until Christmas. I wasn't thinking of singing--should I really? I've never come back to the choir since I left. It would feel... weird. And I don't think Farrell likes me all that much. I'd be just fine sitting in the pew with my mum and catching up w/ you during coffee hour... (Oh, and I also want to see your new place, by the way!)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up