Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHillary's Gift to Women
In Friday's New York Times, Susan Faludi rejoiced over Hillary Clinton's destruction of the myth of female prissiness and innate moral superiority, hailing Clinton's "no-holds-barred pugnacity" and her media reputation as "nasty" and "ruthless." Future female presidential candidates will owe a lot to the race of 2008, Faludi wrote, "when Hillary Clinton broke through the glass floor and got down with the boys."
I share Faludi's glee -- up to a point. Surely no one will ever dare argue that women lack the temperament for political combat. But by running a racially-tinged campaign, lying about her foreign policy experience, and repeatedly seeming to favor McCain over her Democratic opponent, Clinton didn't just break through the "glass floor," she set a new low for floors in general, and would, if she could have got within arm's reach, have rubbed the broken glass into Obama's face.
A mere decade ago Francis Fukuyama fretted in Foreign Affairs that the world was too dangerous for the West to be entrusted to graying female leaders, whose aversion to violence was, as he established with numerous examples from chimpanzee society, "rooted in biology." The counter-example of Margaret Thatcher, perhaps the first of head of state to start a war for the sole purpose of pumping up her approval ratings, led him to concede that "biology is not destiny." But it was still a good reason to vote for a prehistoric-style club-wielding male.
Not to worry though, Francis. Far from being the stereotypical feminist-pacifist of your imagination, the woman to get closest to the Oval Office has promised to "obliterate" the toddlers of Tehran -- along, of course, with the bomb-builders and Hezbollah supporters. Earlier on, Clinton foreswore even talking to presumptive bad guys, although women are supposed to be the talk addicts of the species. Watch out -- was her distinctly unladylike message to Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-Il, and the rest of them -- or I'll rip you a new one.
There's a reason why it's been so easy for men to overlook women's capacity for aggression. As every student of Women's Studies 101 knows, what's called aggression in men is usually trivialized as "bitchiness" in women: Men get angry; women suffer from bouts of inexplicable, hormonally-driven, hostility. So give Clinton credit for defying the belittling stereotype: She's been visibly angry for months, if not decades, and it can't all have been PMS.
But did we really need another lesson in the female capacity for ruthless aggression? Any illusions I had about the innate moral superiority of women ended four years ago with Abu Ghraib. Recall that three out of the five prison guards prosecuted for the torture and sexual humiliation of prisoners were women. The prison was directed by a woman, Gen. Janis Karpinski, and the top U.S. intelligence officer in Iraq, who also was responsible for reviewing the status of detainees before their release, was Major Gen. Barbara Fast. Not to mention that the U.S. official ultimately responsible for managing the occupation of Iraq at the time was Condoleezza Rice.
Whatever violent and evil things men can do, women can do too, and if the capacity for cruelty is a criterion for leadership, as Fukuyama suggested, then Lynndie England should consider following up her stint in the brig with a run for the Senate.
It's important -- even kind of exhilarating -- for women to embrace their inner bitch, but the point should be to expand our sense of human possibility, not to enshrine aggression as a virtue. Women can behave like the warrior queen Boadicea, credited with slaughtering 70,000, many of them civilians, or like Margaret Thatcher, who attempted to dismantle the British welfare state. Men, for their part, are free to take as their role models the pacifist leaders Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. Biology conditions us in all kinds of ways we might not even be aware of yet. But virtue is always a choice.
Hillary Clinton smashed the myth of innate female moral superiority in the worst possible way -- by demonstrating female moral inferiority. We didn't really need her racial innuendos and free-floating bellicosity to establish that women aren't wimps. As a generation of young feminists realizes, the values once thought to be uniquely and genetically female -- such as compassion and an aversion to violence -- can be found in either sex, and sometimes it's a man who best upholds them.
Barbara Ehrenreich, the author of Nickel and Dimed (Owl), is the winner of the 2004 Puffin/Nation Prize.
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
82 Comments so far
Show AllNo race, no gender, no sex, no religion, no creed holds the monopoly on virtue or on "aggression" and other human vices. This is the problem with the Obama movement. So many brilliant and critical thinkers have abdicated their thermostat of critical thinking into a vessel, an empty vessel that they attribute with "goodness" with basically no evidence of such goodness. This is the danger of the Obama movement. A following, that when he amasses power, will be devoted to protected this Disneyesque goodness.
When Obama called whites "typical white people', well I guess Hillary was talking about those folks. But, you attribute all sorts of malice to her words and virtue to Obama's.
We are in danger. Obama is imposing a plutocratic state, with the intelligentsia marching in line, giving up all critical thinking, because they are afraid of being racists. This is like the march into the Iraq war. When the media, the party leadership and the blogs all joining in.
Frankly, I prefer mortal leaders. But I guess the Democratic leadership, the journalists, the intelligentsia, the youth, etc, did nothing to stop the war, they will do nothing now when Obama uses the powers to suppress all opposition and provide a free hand to the plutocrats that feed the Democratic party.
Sad state of affairs, when all the thinking people embedded themselves and fell victim to the Axelrod racism smearing machine. Cowards.
Another Clinton-bashing article. What's wrong with this site ?
And it took Ehrenreich all this time to figure out that woman can be as warlike and as aggressive as men?
All she had to do was to ask Arianna Huffington why she stood with the right-wingers for so many years.
"But the constant attacks will cost Obama a significant enough percentage of voters to insure a MccCain victory in November!!"
You can only hope, Rich, you can only hope.
I do wish the sniping would end, though - from both sides.
Juliann - I was referring to Abu Ghraib.
Juliann: your native friends have lost a lot of their culture. They may also be reluctant to admit that some of it isn't so pretty.
Merek wrote: ***As the American natives used to say, "if captured, don't let them give you to the women". (Because the women were far more vicious torturers than the men.)*** My Native friends say they've never heard of this, though they are proud of their matriarch societies.
Opeluboy responded to Merek - ***Never heard that one, but I think recent events have added credence to that.*** WHAT recent events?
To wonder6789: ***Nothing women do, however bad, compares with the rape, massacre, conception, building and dropping of bombs, and various other things that men do.*** Wow am I glad I didn't say that! This site has burned my backside more than once for even hinting at it!
Calm down people. Calm down.
BTW, Lynddie England is a very interesting example. It wasn't simply that she was "aping male behaviour." The torturers at Abu Ghraib used women specifically because they knew that this would doubly humiliate Arabic men, and some even argued that this was a "feminist" idea.
I was about to say pretty much the same things, leftk.
"While one should abhor Hillary Clinton's or Lynndie England's aping of (Republican) male ruthlessness, it is just that: aping male behavior for male approval. "
First of all, ruthlessness isn't just a Republican trait; ask the people of Nagasaki.
"It's a travesty.
There's still a quantum leap between the violence any woman anywhere up to now has initiated and the type of things men routinely do on battlefields, gang wars or crime scenes since forever, without even going into Attila /Napoleon /Hitler /Stalin territory."
Tell that to the Palestinians who lived under Golda Meir, or the Sikhs who lived under Indira Gandhi, or, hell, the Brits who lived under Thatcher (sure, nobody in the UK died directly because of Thatcher, but they sure suffered under her).
"Male violence is human suicide, as we know since Auschwitz and Hiroshima."
The fighter plane that starts the next nuclear war could easily be female.
"As the poet Louis Aragon famously said:
La femme est l'avenir de l'Homme.
(Woman is the future of Man.)
"
Sentimental nonsense.
Newsflash Rich: There isn't a hell of a lot of difference between Clinton and Obama on the issues. She is worse on foreign policy and while I'm in favor of single payer health care--her plan is far from it and punishes individuals for not being insured. Clinton's leadership style and orientation to power are Machiavellian and fascistic. She continues to campaign even though she can't win, she is only loyal to those who are most loyal to her. She has essentially said that the black vote doesn't matter and is playing the blue collar cultural conservative because it works for her. I'd say her true colors are really showing.
Most folks criticizing Hillary right now are not trying to assasinate her character as much as they are pointing out what is evident from her disgusting political career.
And BTW don't tell me about Obama ruining the Dems chances-- he's run a very respectible campaign and would be out of the race by now were he in Hillary's shoes.
"Margaret Thatcher did not start a war, the Argentine military junta started it. She finished it, in a rather humiliating manner for the Argentines."
I suppose the British social safety net that Thatcher also finished, in a rather humiliating manner, had it coming, too.
Anyone who considers this article "against women" simply lacks proper reading comprehension. Ehrenreich's point is that myths about "female superiority" are ultimately damaging to women. In the Victorian Era, it was precisely women's "innate" superiority that justified keeping them out of the public sphere. The very idea that "if women ran the world, there would be no wars" is insulting to both women and men.
I think it's a mistake to genderize nurturing and warmongering. As Ehrenreich is right to point out virtue is a choice. The same is true of vice.
It doesn't really make sense to say that Obama is more feminine than Clinton. I think his judgment is better and his perspective more holistic-- but to genderize these differences is unfair to men and women.
Obama's supporters are making a huge tactical error in continuing to attack Hillary Clinton (& therefore, her supporters!) I've lost all respect for Barbara Ehrenreich throughout this election cycle - rather than writing articles telling us WHY Obama deserves our support, she has written article after article tearing down Hillary Clinton - AND THEY HAVE BEEN DUMB CHARACTER ASSASSINATION ARTICLES, not about the substantive differences between Clinton and Obama. I've grown so tired of the vicious words used to describe this incredible woman! She has made mistakes; calling her on those with carefully chosen words makes sense. But the constant attacks will cost Obama a significant enough percentage of voters to insure a MccCain victory in November!!
BIG GEEK: You remain stuck on genitals, when we're trying to raise the bar here to qualities both genders possess; yet the better portions of our natures--that which cleaves to cooperation and appreciation of others--is co-opted by the brutal aspect in a process of century's worth of socialization. THAT is what we should be focusing on. How we together alter the programming!
TICONDEROGA: Thank you for your responses. Jackson's story is important because it shows us how conformity and sheeplike behavior operate in a climate that ultimately represents what another author termed "the banality of evil."
It is SO important to challenge authority and community standards. On our own nation's soil community standard consisted of at one time or another: murdering "Injuns," burning women "as witches," lynching Blacks out back just before or after the church picnic.
When Gandhi was asked what he thought about Western CIVILIZATION, he answered, "It would be a good idea."
In my view, until the "feminine" traits are celebrated on a par with the macho posturing that we take for leadership, little will alter. The mindset itself is faulty and asymmetric... without balance, nothing works according to its Divine intention. And as we are seeing in our own nation and its dis-eased leadership, the CENTER will not hold. Our country is about to implode... although Obama might put a bandaid on things, a finger in the dam.
Thanks Barbara. Any low-life could have run a campaign as sleazy as Clinton's. There were times that I felt ashamed of being in the same gender category as she. Instead of bringing some ethics and a sense of dignity and morality to politics, Clinton showed us she's just one of the good ole boys--corrupt, racist, and a very dirty fighter.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of history knows that women are perfectly well-disposed to send men off to fight, die and be maimed in wars.
The danger in the United States is that female leaders like Madeleine Albright for example, will be more eager than men to prove their "cojones" by belligerence. Male politicians who are perceived as soft on crime, soft on communism, soft on terrorism or whatever, have had to do the same thing for ages. Witness Michael Dukakis riding in a tank. Albright gladly scuttled Dayton for that very reason and Clinton's 'obliterate' statement comes under the same heading.
When the neocons and their mouthpieces in the press start barking about the need to start a war with one country or another for one reason or another, we need someone with the strength, not to submit but to resist.
ALEX LAWYER: May I send you a rose for your posting. Wonderfully enlightened!
"Anybody who thinks the world would be a better place if run by women doesn't remember high school." -- Madeleine Albright
The dehumanizing/demonizing comments directed towards Clinton and Obama and negative sexist stereotyping of both males and females in this thread are further evidence that many people who call themselves "progressives" are really neo-cons in denial.
Or maybe they're people who just had bad relationships with their fathers or mothers.
"Oh for the wisdom to know which is which."
Yeah, it's not always easy, is it? But you know something? The people that we put in charge of our country should, since they're also in charge of weapons of mass destruction, be better trained in knowing which is which than a bunch of random people on the net. It would be nice to think so, anyway.
"When you have an opinion or belief that's different from the opinions or beliefs of those surrounding you, your friends and neighbors (or erstwhile friends and neighbors), it's not uncommon for them to punish you by ostracizing you and cutting you off from their society."
Yes, and that happens right here on Common Dreams. I know - I've done it. Some of it is natural and necessary, some not. Oh for the wisdom to know which is which.
Oakport, quoting Cindy Sheehan and then commenting on Cindy's quote:
"I feel exactly the same way about Nancy Pelosi, too…"
"Cindy - shame on you for using this over-the-top article for a blatant political commercial!"
* * *
To oakport: I feel the same way about Nancy Pelosi, too. Of course, since I'm not running for office, I guess it's okay for me to say what I feel.
To Cindy Sheehan: Please keep on saying what you feel. We owe you for it.
Sioux Rose said, "One of the greatest tortures to human beings is isolation, being shamed, exiled or pushed away. Many people go along with the crowd because they can't bear the estrangement that would otherwise result."
That's just about as right as rain. When you have an opinion or belief that's different from the opinions or beliefs of those surrounding you, your friends and neighbors (or erstwhile friends and neighbors), it's not uncommon for them to punish you by ostracizing you and cutting you off from their society. Look at what the US has done, and is doing, to Cuba, for example.
And, of course, look what happened to Cindy Sheehan for simply telling the truth. So, at the risk of being accused of using an "over-the-top" political article for a blatant political commercial: Go Cindy!
(Sioux Rose, I thought everyone read The Lottery. Should, anyway. Mass psychosis and religion, intertwined. Great story.)
"I AM MYSELF: Thank you for validating some of my perspectives. Did you ever read Shirley Jackson's story, "The Lottery?" "
Siouxrose,
I haven't read it, but will put it top of my list.
Well, thank YOU for shining some light on something I've wondered about. Mass (mob?) psychology affects us all, female and male.
Margaret Thatcher, milk snatcher. That is how she was know in England for taking free milk from schools. Susan Faludi's article in the Times was striking as an opinion based on not one fact but a set of notions that justified the feminism of entitlement that came out of the 60's. The idea that the problem with Dow chemical was not that it was making napalm but that it was not run by a woman ended the radicalism of the 60's by asserting that all men were the enemy not the economic royalists that wanted war and benefited from poverty. Barbara Ehrenreich is very smart and connects the dots. The world needs more people like her.
CLINTON CAN MAKE HISTORY: Start a Third Party
Farhat Maquami
Hillary Clinton should not permit to be insulted, ignored, derided and mocked by the Media Savoy Obama Democrats and rebuff them all by making history. From Obama's speech in South Carolina it is Obvious there is no respect for Clintons and they would challenge her in the next Senate election. If In the next senate election 90 per cent of Blacks would go for Osama's handpicked candidate, what would be left of her legacy.
Clinton has a tested brand-name, a loyal following, name recognition, an agenda for Middle Class Americans, all she needs to declare that " the real Change in America needs the breaking of the corrupt two party system which has brought a once prosperous respected America to its needs by conspiracy against the middle class".
Bob Barr could be the Libertarian Candidate and Joe Lieberman can thumb his nose at Democratic Party, win as an Independent and take Democrats hostage, then why Clinton has every right to split with the party that is trashing her and the whole Clinton Era.
She should have the gut to start a new party or refurbish the Green or Libertarian and become its candidate. She might win in a three way race.
In all Western style Democracies from Israel to India, from Italy to Canada when one side notices a fundamental injustice, then it immediately start a new Party.
Hillary Clinton, whose supporters are Middle America and women, has a constituency that might follow her and vote for her as a third party Candidate!
It seems that Obama Mania has blinded the so-called Democratic Party that is a hodge-podge of varying interest group. The time has come for Hillary to take a stand and make history. Splitting the Democratic Party would actually bring Democracy and real Change to Washington. The New splinter group can unite with other splinter groups and voiceless independents from the Republican Party, Green Party, etc and become a viable Party. Who knows what Blue Dog Democrat would do, they might join her too!
Hillary Clinton has more followings and more assets than Joe Lieberman, who defied the Democrats and survived as an independent candidate.
Hillary should not tolerate the daily attack, mockery, and the force of confused young intellectuals that are voting for Obama's Hope message!"Until there is a two party system in America there would be no hope and no change is going to happen in Washington" Bob Barr declared today.
It is high time that instead of being fooled by snake oil salesmen, left or right, starting a new Party, who would defend the interest of hardworking American and would save our Democracy.
Hillary's can only make history by becoming a revolutionary and bring a Real Change to American society. Only by this revolutionary act she would make history rather than be mocked by historian.
Mrs. Clinton has provided some other gifts for women: NAFTA(actually her husband's gift) which set in motion American working men and women's "race
to the bottom", next we have the utterly meaningless Family Medical Leave
Act(again, Bill's gift), we have the WalMart Board of Directors deal, we
have footsy with the union-busting Tyson's, and we have the piece-de-resistance, her corporation empowering "universal health care plans", need
I remind you of a vote to invade Iraq?
Ehrenreich's article did not affect my opinion of Hillary Clinton to any great extent; we apparently shared the same opinion long ago.
Is Hillary the worst person ever born in America(this one's for you Kernal)?
Hell no. Would she make a good president? Hell no.
Whoever is elected(and it won't be Ralph Nader), we will have to "fight 'em"...and it is high time Americans wake up to the fact that change will not ever come from above, but from the self-organization of the folks who are most cordially not invited to the American dream(which is about 98% of us).
Obviously, after reading the article by Ehrenreich and most of the posters, Hillary is the worst woman ever to be born and live in this country. So, what should be done with her for all of the crimes against humanity she has condoned and worked for? Maybe a decade in Guantanamo to soften her up and get some truth from her about all of her crimes, especially against Obama, or would a firing squad make you all happier?
Psychological research demonstrates that women generally are more affiliative and consensus-seeking and men more confrontational and aggresive. However, politics is a man's world and women who play by the mens' rules are the ones who get to the top. This is not, on my veiw, a good thing. Obama is more stereotypically feminine in his approach and Hillary more stereotypically masculine. We've had over 100,000 years of dominance by the male paradigm, and it has brought a steady stream of blood and tears. We can and should have more women in high office--but not Hillary Clinton, a chimera of Agrippina, Margaret Thatcher and Imelda Marcos.
OPELBOY: Your wife sounds amazing! I honor women who master themselves, and Martial Arts is a key tool in that challenge.
I AM MYSELF: Thank you for validating some of my perspectives. Did you ever read Shirley Jackson's story, "The Lottery?" It's about a small town where all members take part in (what turns out to be a brutal) ritual. I relate this because probably most of us in this forum are strong enough and confident enough in our intellects to be able to put forth sometimes unpopular (given the national consensus) opinions. We may be the family blacksheeps, or ones who stepped out of the uniform designs. Therefore it's tough for US to understand why so many adapt to systems of belief & behavior (one example, "What's the Matter with Kansas") that undermine them.
One of the greatest tortures to human beings is isolation, being shamed, exiled or pushed away. Many people go along with the crowd because they can't bear the estrangement that would otherwise result. The best instance of women acting with horror towards other women is the practice of clitorectomy. We may ask why women go along, but women INSIDE those cultures have been long conditioned to twisted beliefs about their own bodies and sexuality (evil, dishonored etc) and consider genital mutilation the "lesser" of sins.
EMPIRE PIE: You brought up the role of socialization and alluded to the many tools societies use to indoctrinate or program their members.
SAMSON: I was quoting something stated by MAIRS and you took MY reponse out of context. Did you even bother to read the thread?
On the "inner bitch" thing.
I really despise that sort of thinking, and the notion that any level of arrogance, hostility and general nastiness for the purpose of securing one's own place or gaining power over others is admirable has contributed to the misconceptions (and fear) many men have of feminism.
My wife of 32 years was foreign born (Taiwan), learned English, dealt with US public schools (starting in Newark, God love her), built 2 successful companies when being non-anglo and a woman was unheard of (in Texas). She danced in the Royal Ballet, taught dance to kids for years, and became a Sifu in Kung Fu, a 3rd Degree Blackbelt in Karate, a world-class Tai Chi master and a respected Chi Gung practitioner, studying under 3 of the most respected masters alive.
She accomplished all of this while being utterly feminine and beautiful (and sexy), without screaming at anyone, without clawing her way to the top. She is loving and kind to everyone she meets, while maintaining the ability to rip your heart out and show it to you before you die.
That, to me, is a feminist.
"IF aggression was "handled" in the sense of being transcended, OURS would be a far gentler planet. Even in those instances of "Just War" where defense is called for, we would not see a rabid proliferation of arms of all sorts that makes conflict too often the FIRST line of response, rather than the last!"
Siouxrose,
I have to wonder, though - why do women let their children go off to war? I'm not trying to be flip or insensitive, but I do wonder about everyone's responsibility in keeping the cycle going. It's not just the male aggression of war, but the demand for products that drive war. We're ALL part of this insanity!
"Our universe is based and indeed BUILT upon LAWS of balance, so just as this female archetype applauds and champions war and the power structure of the boys' club… there are male archetypes that are tender and considerate. It's not just male-female… there's a lot more to the CIRCLE of life!"
Thank you, Siouxrose, for putting so aptly into words what I have been feeling for a long time. And I must say, I have hesitated suggesting such a thing as I have been wary of being accused of being a misogynist.
Both the Yin and the Yang have their own sets of power - different, yet they contain some of the other within them. And, they both need each other lest the whole thing fly apart.
To try to unravel the dilemma we are in perhaps we need to look beyond sexuality, biology and aggressiveness to our maze of institutions and power structures that set the course for much of our blundering ways as they all clamor (from all the points on the rose) ' there is no other way'.
Merek - Never heard that one, but I think recent events have added credence to that.
As the American natives used to say, "if captured, don't let them give you to the women". (Because the women were far more vicious torturers than the men.)
The Wizard of Oz is trying to deflect our attention from the man behind the curtain. The Wizard wants us to look at race/gender instead of character and principles. Are we going to scold Toto or encourage him to pull back the curtain? Toto gets very little support in the Land of Oz.
Mairs:
"We just show it in different ways."
Nothing women do, however bad, compares with the rape, massacre, conception, building and dropping of bombs, and various other things that men do.
I'll live quite happily with women's level of violence, thank you.
(I happen to be a man, by the way.)
"It's important — even kind of exhilarating — for women to embrace their inner bitch, but the point should be to expand our sense of human possibility, not to enshrine aggression as a virtue."
The same can be said for men "embracing their inner bastard". Let's all EXPAND our sense of human possibility, if indeed we have one!
"As a generation of young feminists realizes, the values once thought to be uniquely and genetically female — such as compassion and an aversion to violence — can be found in either sex, and sometimes it's a man who best upholds them."
Yes, and as a generation of young males are beginning to realize, aggression (not a virtue) is not unique and genetically male - it can be found in either sex, and "sometimes" it's a woman who upholds this stance, though under most circumstances the majority of us would much prefer to engage in peacful and non-aggressive negotiations and behavior.
'It seems apparent that in all human cultures, women are mostly concerned with nesting and protecting children, and that it is a biological continuation of their being able to bear them.
And that men -as a rule- are more brutal and empathy-challenged, without waiting to be given the "opportunity".'
vinlander, I as a woman don't believe this. You can go into many homes which on the outside look picture perfect, yet inside the home resides a mother as empathy-challenged and in her own female way as brutal as any male could possibly be.
We just show it in different ways. Give us the power that men hold and we will give you Hillarys as well as Mother Theresas.
Yesterday I blogged about the original purpose of Mother's Day in America (which can be found here: http://mothersdayforpeace.com/), and I remarked on how the woman that authored the "Mother's Day Proclamation" (Julia Ward Howe) appeared to view the nurturing abilities of woman as a strength, and a key reason why women's leadership is a necessity. I don't consider myself a feminist exactly, although I may share some ideas with feminism. However, what truly bothers me about Hillary's (and other modern females leadership's) strategy is this absurd notion that depending on might and fight making for strong leadership. Why can't we all agree that there are differences, and that a balance between the sexes would be ideal? I would love to see a woman in the Oval Office, but I would prefer it be a woman that is clearly proud to be a woman, not one that seems to think she needs to emulate the strengths of men to succeed - THAT is the type of thinking that should be considered outdated!
Best thing Hillary can do for womanhood is become a human first and then become a man.
The Clinton embody the dysfunctionality of American society. Bad behavior is rewarded with loyalty, and any intrusion of truth is regarded as personal betrayal. Sixteen years ago, Barbara Ehrenreich tried to warn Democrats that the Clintons were not the return of FDR & Eleanor, but was largely hissed for doing so.
There has always been a struggle between the definition of feminism, between egalitarians and qualitarians, and most of the attacks on feminists have used the latter as a means of attacking the former. Like her spouse, Hilary has always been whatever the tide seemed to demand in order to get to the forefront.
Barbara Ehrenreich has consistently maintained her principles, even in the balmy days of the early '90s when Democrats believed they had sent the right wing into permanent exile.
"Obliterating" anybody is not what I want to hear from any leader of our once fair nation. Hillary did reach a new low when she said that. Brilliant bee analogy Alaskamaid. Right is right, whether it comes from Cindy Sheehan or someone else, at least somebody is Saying it. Thanks Cindy. Pelosi is another modern day failure/traitor to women and fellow humans alike.
Certain behaviors and words are unacceptable. Period. As a parent I have to make that call all the time.
There is no causal link between low testosterone and male violence. There are too many factors in violence to consider.
"Years ago, some "experts" said high testosterone causes male violence, but studies discussed at the 1995 annual meeting of the Endocrine Society revealed that men with low testosterone were more violent.
One University of California, Los Angeles study was on 54 men with low testosterone levels. They were edgy, irritable and angry. After receiving testosterone, they were friendlier and more optimistic. In another study, men with normal testosterone received a drug to lower their testosterone, and they became much more aggressive." from www.dailylobo.com.
Great article. Certainly, men are historically more violent, but it's not the testosterone. Just wanted to clear up that myth.
Tex Shelters
Good article, but I long ago rid myself of the easily diproven notion that women are somehow more moral than men. All people are capable of being assholes. Men just have more opportunities on a larger stage.
Margaret Thatcher did not start a war, the Argentine military junta started it. She finished it, in a rather humiliating manner for the Argentines.
To Cindy Shehan's comments:
Cindy - shame on you for using this over-the-top article for a blatant political commercial!
"I feel exactly the same way about Nancy Pelosi, too…"
Indeed! I have supported most of your issues, but this goes way beyond reality!
oakport
Hillary Clinton is a woman?
To ascribe Hillary's campaign as either a good or bad example of feminism in action is the ultimate in sexist thinking. There is no such thing as "female moral superiority" any more than there is "male moral superiority." Whether one sees Obama and Clinton as morally superior to the other really does seem to depend on a combination of factors: race, age, gender, education, economic status.
Simply put, whatever Hillary does is because she's Hillary, not solely because she's a woman. Similarly, whatever Obama says or does is because he's Obama, not solely because he's bi-racial.
@mairs: Where in this world do you detect men who are able to handle aggression??? Have a good hard look at a world map, think just of the conflicts that are going on there right now, and show me the men who are able to handle their aggression!
And re Hillary: When someone imitates someone else, they always go overboard. Just as transvestites are exaggerations of certain aspects of womanhood, too many women in politics are exaggerations of certain aspects of being male.
But it is very depressing to see that a woman who would run like a real woman and not try to pretend that she is as good as any other guy still would stand no chance at all and wouldn't even get as far as HC did.
Male behavior, although men are actually the minority, is still the norm in society, and female behavior is still the deviation from that sacred norm.
You know, Hillary Clinton's policies for children, domestically, and even some of her economic policies, were certainly the best of the three "viables". None of them are any good on foreign policies, so I concede the point - but I believe the Hillary bashing has been foolish, unwise, and most importantly, untrue. She hasn't done anything that most politicians do yet has been held to a much higher standard. I'd be fine with that if it was the SAME STANDARD for Obama, McCain and the others. But it isn't.
Siouxrose .... "HANDLED THEIR AGGRESSION? You mean in rapes, murders, warfare and gang style aggression? You mean in domestic abuse and bar brawls? PULEASE"
----------
So, are you saying that absolutely every single man engages in these behaviours? That every man is a rapist? That every man abuses their spouse and goes out looking for bar brawls?
If you only think in simple stereotypes like this, then its no surprise at all that you haven't noticed the other men around you who do handle their aggression and don't behave like this.
Ya know, thinking tactically, splitting the anti-war vote between Gravel, McKinney and Nader is an absolutely sure way to make sure the pro-war, pro-corporate candidates will win again.
If we ever want to get serious, we have to unify these sorts of campaigns into just one opposition campaign. We face a tough enough struggle to overcome the corporate money and the corporate media supporting the corporate candidates without splitting our own vote three (or more) ways.
Isn't the entirely obvious thing of this whole discussion is that you can't make simplistic judgements about someone by their 'gender' or 'race' or 'hairstyle' or any other meaningless external factors?
To me, that was obvious from the beginning. Which is one reason why the early attempts of the Hillary campaign to try to get women to vote for her because she's a woman caused such a negative reaction in me. Of course, that's the same negative reaction I get when I see Obama trying to get all African-American voters to vote for him because of his darker than white skin color.
Isn't it obvious that its the character of the individual that matters? Isn't it obvious that its the policies they choose and the sides they take that matters? Not the gender or the race or the hairstyle or any other silly external factor.
Of course, in a race where no candidate that's judged to be a 'serious candidate' can put forth any meaningful change in policy, its pretty much a given that these silly external factors will dominate the debate. No 'serious candidate' can oppose the American empire, or an economic structure that works for major stockholders but which screws over American workers. When you take every serious issue for debate off the table, what's left is the disgusting debate we've seen in the Democratic Party for the last few months.
Instead of wanting to have a woman or a person of color elected, why don't we try something new? Let's get a just and peaceful minded person, one who thinks before they speak, one who will act with justice not because they have to, but because they want to. One who embraces people instead of futher demonizing them.
If you want a leader that is a liar, a cheat, a betrayor, an unjust individual that will sell out to the highest bidder, who has no conscience, history will prove that you will find it among all segments of society. Currently we have Bush, Condaleza Rice, Hillary, McCain, Cheney, Limbaugh, etc to prove that point.
I oppose the war, death penalty, corporate greed, environmental destruction, which McCain, Hillary, and Obama all support.
That is why I support Ralph Nader or the Green Party. Also, Mike Gravel is running as well.
The worst crimes were dared by a few, willed by more and tolerated by all. ~Tacitus
For those who read Faludi's piece, there was a strong sense throughout the article that confirmation of her (Faludi's) claim that HRC had shattered the glass ceiling was to be found in the fact that large numbers of male voters had voted for her in the various primaries.
Faludi's piece was built around the idea that the spectacle of the pugilist--into which HRC had transformed herself at least as early as the Pennsylvania primary (remember the Rocky references?)--somehow triggered a switch within the male voters' brain, tapping into what Faludi calls "that visceral subbasement of the national imagination — the one that underlies all the blood-and-guts sports imagery our culture holds so dear."
While I found Faludi's article to be quite entertaining, as something passing for a kind of sociological analysis of male voting patterns in the 2008 DP primaries it didn't quite satisfy.
Let's ignore entirely the fact that in drawing on the boxing metaphors to explain the source of HRC's newfound appeal among men through her public transformation from "prissy hall monitor" to political pugilist she ignores the specific boxing contest that has repeatedly been invoked in the camapaign, 1976's Oscar winner Rocky. This is significant because it suggests that if Faludi is right (and I'm not sure at all that she is) that HRC appeals to male voters becasue she has cast herself as a prizefighter, it cannot be ignored that she has csat herself in a particularly racially charged fight, one that pits not just boxer against boxer, but a poor white underdog (HRC, however improbable this may be) against a rich black boxer (Obama).
Faludi wants to suggest that HRC's appeal has to do with a kind of gender switch that HRC has pulled off and that has enabled male voters to identify with her as a kind of honorary "man," but she entirely excludes the way this may (following her own metaphor) be as much about a certain kind of pleasure white male voters vicariously take in the spectacle of a white "guy" beating up on a black guy.
Now, I'm suspicious of this whole thing. That is, I don't think Faludi's analysis is all that interesting or sharp here. It plays like a retread of the rhetorical strategy of Elizabeth I's Tilbury speech ("I may have the body of a woman, but I have the stomach of a king of England..."). Frankly, watching HRC throughout the campaign I've heard her just as often cast herself in pretty traditionally "feminine" terms, so I don't see this being anything like a dominant strategy in her efforts to enlist support for her candidacy.
That Ehrenreich felt it was necessary or important to take on Faludi's article is a bit surprising since it grants Faludi's piece a seriousness I'm not sure it merits.
Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton are stark reminders that the democratic party (and voter base) is clearly made up of (2) very different types of humans. One can only hope the racists and violent side of the democratic party will be sent packing to the republican side -- where they belong. Add to that, if elected, Obama will include fresh faces, voices and ideas that don't include warmongers, murderers that have over the years, placed us where we are today: at the edge of the abyss.
HUMANS do some pretty nasty stuff all in the name of one thing or another (personal power, ideology, whatever).
At one point I thought any of the Democratic candidates would be great...they were all so intelligent and knowledgeable in those early debates...I really felt so proud of them all.
Then early this year Hillary became something way out of step with the Democratic values I adhere to and so I no longer thought well of her. Watching her ridicule Obama at that RI speech was the beginning of the end for me.
But I don't think she is evincing "male" behavoir, she is using Republican behavoirs.
criticalthinktank wrote:
"Get a life. I grow weary of women who are against women. Cattiness rules amongst women."
I grow weary of women who are against women, men who are against men, women who are against men, and men who are against women. And I am not convinced that Ehrenreich is a woman who is against women (I tend to think she is a human who is pro-human).
Ticonderoga wrote:
"I don't know, but it seems to me that today's world is far too dangerous to be entrusted to anyone who doesn't have an aversion to violence."
I have to agree with that, and my belief that the species will go extinct before the end of the century grows stronger every day because as it currently stands a willingness to engage in violence is a prerequisite for holding positions of great power.
I know it is highly unlikely, but there remains the remote possibility that humans will use genetic engineering for the good of the species, for the survival of the species, and engineer babies, male and female, that are much less likely to engage in violence, and then to require all leaders of any significance to be chosen from such a pool.
CriticalThinkTank:
You say you are tired of articles "by women against women".
How do you feel about articles by men against men?
Americans against Americans?
You seem to live in a world that is all about people grouping up into teams and defending the interests of those teams over all other priorities.
If we are going to survive the current crisis, we all need to move beyond that kind of thinking.
criticalthinktank:
"I grow weary of women who are against women".
I do too: HRC "shocking and awing" 17 million Iraqi women and girls, threatening to "totally obliterate" 35 million Persian women and girls.
Jacob Freeze wrote the following.
"Does Barbara Ehrenreich's insane hate-speech really belong on a progressive website like Common Dreams?"
Does this kind of Rovian viciousness belong on a progressive website?
jj
More articles against women by women. Another 'catty' female.
I want her to give examples of men who have been 'compassionate and have an aversion to violence' and why MEN are the best to uphold them?
This is the author of 'Nickel and Dimed'. A wealthy woman, who 'pretended' to be poor to try and see how they lived. A sad attempt. Paying for hotel rooms isn't the kind of money poor people have. Most live in homeless shelters or if they are lucky, in their cars.
Get a life. I grow weary of women who are against women. Cattiness rules amongst women.
KANE JEEVES: We are NOT all the same after all. What manages to rip its way to the top of the pile has COMMON traits like aggression and an over-inflated ego.
CINDY SHEEHAN: Why there appears an absence of women of merit in the more encompassing, humane sense of the word from positions of political power I believe has its roots in the wisdom of Ancient mythology. Jean Shinoda Bolen, a brilliant Jungian psychologist wrote two books from which I gained this understanding: Gods in Everyman, and Goddesses in Every Woman.
As per her explanation, the archetype of Athena is that of a woman who aspires towards power. In the original myth, Athena DENIES her mother and believes her origin stems from her father Zeus's head! This is an apt metaphor for the type of female who THINKS like a man. This is generally the type of female allowed into the male hierarchy because regardless of her genitalia, she does NOT rock the boat. Her belief system accords with the status quo! These are the types of women who may themselves utilize Affirmative Action programs but will be first to drop the ladder before others have a chance to climb it. They are the types of women who write glib articles suggesting women should stay home to raise families, while working with corporations to keep wages so low that many women MUST work. HILARY is ATHENA... as are the vast majority that we see rising into the ranks of political and corporate power.
Our universe is based and indeed BUILT upon LAWS of balance, so just as this female archetype applauds and champions war and the power structure of the boys' club... there are male archetypes that are tender and considerate. It's not just male-female... there's a lot more to the CIRCLE of life!
MAIRS offered, "Men have had to learn how to handle their aggression for centuries," I don't know, sounds like satire to me? HANDLED THEIR AGGRESSION? You mean in rapes, murders, warfare and gang style aggression? You mean in domestic abuse and bar brawls? PULEASE... IF aggression was "handled" in the sense of being transcended, OURS would be a far gentler planet. Even in those instances of "Just War" where defense is called for, we would not see a rabid proliferation of arms of all sorts that makes conflict too often the FIRST line of response, rather than the last!
I think what we're seeing is, given the opportunity, "minority groups", be it women, African-Americans, Jews, etc. are just as capable of producing all the horrors the rich white men they purportedly despise are capable of.
In a funny way, that proves we ARE the same afterall!
The larger point is that be she male or female Hillary Clinton is a terrible democratic candidate. We do not need two neocon parties and her race baiting is a disgrace.
Hillary's gift to women would be for her to retire and never be seen in public again. That would help.
Hoa binh
TICONDEROGA said, " don't know, but it seems to me that today's world is far too dangerous to be entrusted to anyone who doesn't have an aversion to violence." BRAVO to that remark!
CICERO added, "The US is an empire, and sustaining an empire requires the constant nurturing of an aggressive ideology. Thus, only those who prove they can be aggressive are 'qualified' to lead the country." BRILLIANT point!
WONDER 6798: Bravo, too!
I do find Barbara E's analyses always very linear. Her theses always mirror the seeming truths of the moment, i.e. they are measured against consensus and ordinary reality. These things themselves are much the product of conditioned responses to societies programmed with very twisted sticks and carrots as their motivational strategies.
It takes great strength of character for individuals raised in warped societies to rise above the Cuckoo's Nest. Of course women can emulate any behaviors that men can do; the point is to raise the bar on behaviors for both! And that involves moving from a care-less society to a CARING society. The missing traits too often associated with weakness (particularly to those under thrall to MARS RULES who celebrate force first) include compassion, empathy, self-control, self-discipline, and a willingness to TALK things out in a search for common ground, rather than dog eat dog, who's the biggest bully.
You can take Hillary Rodham Clinton out of the "race to the bottom" Wal-Mart Board of Directors, but you can't take the "race to the bottom" Mal-Wart Board of Directors out of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"But by running a racially-tinged campaign, lying about her foreign policy experience, and repeatedly seeming to favor McCain over her Democratic opponent, Clinton didn't just break through the "glass floor," she set a new low for floors in general, and would, if she could have got within arm's reach, have rubbed the broken glass into Obama's face."
A new low? Compared to what? Hitler? George Wallace? Robert Mugabe? The generals in Burma?
Hillary Clinton wants to rub broken glass into Obama's face?
Does Barbara Ehrenreich's insane hate-speech really belong on a progressive website like Common Dreams?
vinlander writes:
"Perhaps Attila /Napoleon /Hitler /Stalin territory is exclusively male because women have had fewer opportunities to pursue their God-given viciousness, which I have no doubt is equal to that of the male Homo Sapiens."
It seems apparent that in all human cultures, women are mostly concerned with nesting and protecting children, and that it is a biological continuation of their being able to bear them.
And that men -as a rule- are more brutal and empathy-challenged, without waiting to be given the "opportunity".
And this is clearly confirmed every morning by my daily newspaper, Hillary or no Hillary.
It is very dangerous to underestimate the power of ruthless women, as much of it necessarily derives from acting behind the scenes much of the time. Case in point -- Barbara Pierce Bush.
My mother used to say that women could be more ruthless than men. I didn't believe her, until I finally realized the vicious, insane, destructive games my mother-in-law (she could be BPB's sister) was playing behind my back. As my mother said, well, the ones who are like that, are like that.
I think men are right to fear matriarchies as ultimately they are the power behind patriarchies. The flip side of the coin -- can't have one without the other.
We are like worker bees under the hidden influence of the queen bee. That would be Hillary and her ilk.
She really sees Obama as fighting her for control of the hive and that is why she is behaving so irrationally.
Obama's main strength is that he is NOT fighting for control of the hive, but Hillary cannot understand that.
The bees are preparing to swarm, leaving Hillary alone in her suddenly empty hive.
I feel exactly the same way about Nancy Pelosi, too...
She broke the glass floor and we finally had a female Speaker of the House, but she has been an absolute failure...women can fuck up just as easily as men.
We need females who are able to embrace their aggressive side, but who are also not afraid to lead from our strength...what makes us women...our compassion and capacity for unconditional love. I can think of very few females in power who fit that bill.
Love & Peace
Cindy
As a male I can say that the idea of the demonic male has a lot of truth. Blame it on testosterone maybe. Women can be sadists too, and engage in cruel behaviour, but in far fewer numbers.
There are better would be leaders out there than Clinton and Thatcher, but the rules are such that only their type gets to the top.
Perhaps Attila /Napoleon /Hitler /Stalin territory is exclusively male because women have had fewer opportunities to pursue their God-given viciousness, which I have no doubt is equal to that of the male Homo Sapiens.
Men have had to learn how to handle their aggression for centuries, thus developing a code of conduct in situations like the primary contest that is for the most part ingrained. In my opinion some aggressive women who are able to finally realize the full extent of their own power, don't seem to have access to that male code of conduct which acts as a check-valve on our impulses to conquer and destroy. It just never has come up for them because they were not in the position to wield power before.
Egged on by supporters who wanted no limits put on aggressiveness, no end point to entitlement, all stops removed, and any signs of human empathy vigorously tamped down by the psychological device of turning Obama into a zero, a nothing, an empty suit... it's been a perfect outpouring of bitchiness + power = aggresson.
While one should abhor Hillary Clinton's or Lynndie England's aping of (Republican) male ruthlessness, it is just that: aping male behavior for male approval.
It's a travesty.
There's still a quantum leap between the violence any woman anywhere up to now has initiated and the type of things men routinely do on battlefields, gang wars or crime scenes since forever, without even going into Attila /Napoleon /Hitler /Stalin territory.
Male violence is human suicide, as we know since Auschwitz and Hiroshima.
As the poet Louis Aragon famously said:
La femme est l'avenir de l'Homme.
(Woman is the future of Man.)
The US is an empire, and sustaining an empire requires the constant nurturing of an aggressive ideology. Thus, only those who prove they can be aggressive are 'qualified' to lead the country. This results in the grotesque spectacle of candidates from traditionally discriminated groups (women, blacks, gays, etc) to exaggerate their eagerness to kill and destroy others in order to be seen as credible presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton's display to this effect (deplored here by Ehrenreich) is a particular manifestation of this general problem.
"A mere decade ago Francis Fukuyama fretted in Foreign Affairs that the world was too dangerous for the West to be entrusted to graying female leaders, whose aversion to violence was, as he established with numerous examples from chimpanzee society, "rooted in biology.""
I don't know, but it seems to me that today's world is far too dangerous to be entrusted to anyone who doesn't have an aversion to violence.
That last paragraph is profound.
The content of your character...above gender politics, the question becomes, what kind of human being are you?