Not Your Mother’s Disappointment… But Sort Of
In five days, I’ll be casting my vote in one of the many Super Tuesday primaries. And I’m pissed about it.
No, it’s not that there are only two candidates left, when approximately four thousand nine hundred and sixty-two started out. I can deal with the attrition, even if it ruled out my favorite (though less electable) choice. It’s not even that negative ads make both options appear slightly nauseating to me, either.
What it is, is a visceral reaction to the demonizing of strong women. I don’t have a problem admitting that Hillary Clinton is not perfect. I don’t have a problem admitting that many of her actions have screamed “SLIMY POLITICIAN IN ACTION!” I don’t have a problem admitting that her husband has certainly added an innovative new element of both slime and negative politicking usually reserved for vice presidential candidates and PACs. I don’t have a problem admitting that her campaign, with and without Bill, has included false accusations against Barack Obama.
…if Hillary Clinton is elected as president, this achievement will be downplayed as a wife of a former president being elected — not as a woman being elected.I do have a problem with people who won’t admit those things about the other candidate, however. I have a problem when I see people react to an aggressive move by Clinton as pushy or manipulative and one by Obama as confident. I have a problem that Clinton is the only candidate who is referred to by her first name, whereas all other candidates get the respect of their last name. And don’t say it’s because we’d confuse her with her husband. The people who watch the long-winded debate reviews are not likely to think that Bill is the headliner . . . at least not officially. Which reminds me, I also have a problem that if Hillary Clinton is elected as president, this achievement will be downplayed as a wife of a former president being elected — not as a woman being elected.
I take it back. I’m not pissed. I’m sad. I’m the kind of sad that your mom used to make you cringe when you broke curfew three nights in a row: “I’m not mad. I’m disappointed.” I’m hugely disappointed in the attitudes that persist, even — perhaps especially — among women about women in power.
Do you know I recently got an e-mail from a friend about how much she hates Hillary Clinton? Sure, she’s a diehard Republican and thus highly unlikely to ever vote for anyone on the Democratic ticket, but “hate”? And what’s worse, two other friends in on the e-conversation chimed in that they agreed. Why? Because they bought into the media portrayal of her as callous, as calculating, as a cold, cold bitch.
And yet that same week, a Manhattan cabbie from Pakistan asked my sister if she supported Clinton. My sister said she was still evaluating the candidates and their stances on the issues, and the cabbie replied that he thought it was important — no, crucial — that American women stand up for her, especially since we are a (the?) reining world power yet tens of nations have gone ahead of us in the significant act of electing a female leader. But, outside of that cab, I hear almost nothing about the role of women as world leaders and the role of the United States within that world.
I hear cattiness. The same cattiness that branded Martha Stewart as an unsympathetic creature worthy of harsh judgment while the men around her escaped with lesser (or no) sentences and an understanding of their drive to succeed in a world where men bring home the bacon. (Martha was just supposed to fry it up and serve it around scallops in a beautifully appointed parlor.)
Is there any chance that Clinton can get a fair evaluation? If not, is it the fault of the media — or is it really the fault of us, the voters, who willingly buy into the utterly antiwoman presentation of Clinton as a bloodthirsty, unscrupulous politicker who is too mean to be fair and too female to be strong?