Does Being a Feminist Mean Voting for Hillary?

[babylonsister]

http://www.alternet.org/story/48390/

Does Being a Feminist Mean Voting for Hillary?

By Courtney E. Martin, AlterNet. Posted February 26, 2007.

Are feminists obligated to support a political candidate just because she's a woman?


The race for 2008 has just begun and already I am feeling giddy with hope. The majority of Americans recognize that the war was botched, and larger numbers than ever are questioning the morality of preemptive violence in general. Edwards sounds like he's sampling JFK in his twang about individual responsibility. Obama is sweet-talking a nation with his audacious authenticity. And Clinton -- mother, wife, and badass -- is a front-runner to become the first female president in the history of the United States. It is almost enough to restore my college-era idealism.

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?

snip//

And this is where the trouble starts. The feminist movement coaxed the country into believing that a leader is not defined by gender. Period. And in some ways, the pressure to support Hillary Clinton -- by virtue of her being a female -- feels regressive. As a young, fed-up progressive, I want to vote for someone who seems real, who strikes me as outside of the old guard and its outrageously overblown campaign spending. I want to support a candidate who doesn't compromise on certain issues -- violence, the constitution -- and understands the wisdom of the "middle path" in others -- taxes, social security. This part of my identity, the hungry-to-be-surprised part, is looking for a leader who reminds me of nothing, who only conjures up a kinder, wiser future. That person is not looking much like former first lady, current Congresswoman Clinton.

So where do my deepest loyalties lie? Do I prioritize my commitment to wholesale progress -- no gender qualifiers attached -- or do I focus on the importance of this historical moment for women?

The White House Project, a non-partisan nonprofit, makes a strong case for the latter, arguing that a critical mass of women in leadership positions -- no matter what their specific politics -- will make the world a better place; it is essentially a feminist "tipping point" ala Malcolm Gladwell. They help female candidates of all sorts of persuasions raise money, in addition to promoting girls' leadership and doing powerful media activism.

As much as I respect this organization -- and others, like Code Pink -- I believe that they dance dangerously on the line between advocacy and essentialism. The former is well-intentioned -- get women in office and they will tip the country toward more egalitarian, more peaceful policies. The latter is an inversion of the same old bullshit -- now it's not men who are more inherently fit to lead and save the world, but women.

more...

[hippiechick]

1. I would hope not.

I am, and I choose not to.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. As a woman, I am not for Hillary. It's a matter of character and not gender.

I support Pelosi and like alot of women but, I won't support someone just because of gender.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Then You Are A Republican Who Hates Powerful Women

Sorry, but that's just a fact.

[rox63]

5. WTF?

Would you support Liddy Dole for Prez? She's a woman.

[babylonsister]

8. You are being sarcastic, right, Manny? Sometimes I have to ask. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Probably

I've been told this so many times that I'm beginning to believe it!

[rox63]

4. As a feminist, I say 'Hell no!'

And it has nothing to do with her gender. There are other women I'd support in a heartbeat. Just not HRC.

[shirlden]

6. Not an HRC supporter

There is a list of qualified women as long as the list of qualified men and there are several in that list I would support with 100% time and conviction.
HRC lost me when she became the cheerleader for *s war. Now the magic act she is trying to pull off makes me feel that she is just being condescending to the left. I am a big Bill supporter, but let us be honest, in may ways, he was the last great republic prez. Hill is just Bill without the charisma. She can't pull it off and the public will see this when the elections really get stumping.
My fear is that she will set back the cause of women in politics instead of move it forward.

[Devon77]

7. I think that has nothing to do with it

As much as I respect this organization -- and others, like Code Pink -- I believe that they dance dangerously on the line between advocacy and essentialism. The former is well-intentioned -- get women in office and they will tip the country toward more egalitarian, more peaceful policies. The latter is an inversion of the same old bullshit -- now it's not men who are more inherently fit to lead and save the world, but women.

Code Pink seems to like Kucinich.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3wxkvsQvtQ

"And all of those persons who wanna be president,
they're gonna have to answer the questions they're going to be scrutenized,
they're gonna have to come up with real answers,or guess what they will never president of the United States of America."

[PATRICK]

10. She does have a female voter base

which served her well in NY. It is more than feminist, but a lot of women would like to see a decent woman candidate for president and one with a real shot and the Clinton legacy are not to be slighted. it is one of the big reasons she can run with a decent chance of winning.

Then, there is everything else. And the piling on of the negatives added to jitters about the LAST two elections could evaporate her chances to oblivion. This is an interesting time though since name recognition builds on real strengths and a legitimate favorite. If this were the Republican party in any way it would be the lock the media often makes it appear to be using GOP benchmarks. It is incredible that she allows her negatives to be accented continuously in her efforts to derail fatal competition(that is to say ANY competition) whose first hope is to expose and confirm those weaknesses as early as possible. I say "allows" since the media does its own accenting on even the wariest candidate.

In a softball primary season with competitors money weak and falling over each other, those who dislike Hillary intensely and disagree with her with solid grounds that echo the inner sentiments of many many voters might find themselves surprised that a tepid season would make Hillary the "winner". The real wishes of the voters would be surprised in this case. A real robust engagement of the voters with real choices would in turn surprise Hillary very badly. The way this primary date changes are stacking up though the middle alternative of Hillary doing well in early big market states and surviving strongly gives her an added hope. Getting crushed in Iowa and New Hampshire will have much less effect on the money juggernaut this time.

The debates should be a lot more heated as a result this time.

[bemildred]

11. Being a feminist means voting however you want to.

Letting other people order you around is not feminist, eh?

[GeorgeGist]

12. NO

unless you think that feminism should stoop to the level of male chauvinism.

[gravity]

13. Yes, women are incapable of making their own decisions

:sarcasm: