Optimist Feminists vs. Pessimist Feminists...why more women didn't vote for Hillary

[dkf]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1812050,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

One of the Democratic campaign's great misperceptions has been that Clinton held an overwhelming advantage among women voters. But that isn't the case. As expected, Clinton captured the over-65 vote, and Obama won over younger women. But women in the middle split almost evenly between the two.

---

Clinton's run has exposed a divide between what could be termed optimist and pessimist feminists. It's a split between those who see Clinton's candidacy as groundbreaking--as the first of many serious runs by strong women--and those who count backward to Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and conclude that this kind of opportunity comes along only once in a generation. For this latter group, Clinton's candidacy took on a pressing urgency: If not now, when? If not her, who?

What unites the pessimists--many of whom are older women or women who don't work outside the home--is the persistent belief that women continue to face sexism and barriers in the workplace. Some may have an outmoded sense of the obstacles women face on the job, while others may well have left a workplace that made it hard for them to maintain a work-life balance. In both cases, they're more likely to place value in the symbolic power of electing a woman President.

Optimist feminists, on the other hand, don't question that a woman can become President or that it will occur in their lifetime. When these women look around, they see themselves making up half of business- and medical-school classes. They are law partners, CEOs and university presidents. And they don't want to rally behind a female candidate simply because she is a woman.

[zanne]

1. This feminist didn't vote for Hillary...

Because Barack Obama was the better candidate. Period.

[havocmom]

5. Obama: What I can do for America (all of it) V Clinton: what you can do for me

Sorry, Hillary, I don't see that construct as any different than what the good ol boys in the political Boys' Club have been peddling for generations.

Vote for the CANDIDATE who is addressing the broadest and closest match to your own desire for agenda and leave genitalia out of the decision. To vote based on the plumbing of the candidate is the sexist option. Most of us get that.

[KittyWampus]

10. Hillary seemed to be saying "vote to send me to Washington & then go back to doing nothing"

absolutely no attempt to get people involved PERMANENTLY in politics.

Just send some money and vote for her... and then leave her alone to do what she says is best.

Obama was the opposite. It was ground-up, get organized and involved in politics for good.

[havocmom]

14. Yep. Voters used as coin v Voters made investors/shareholders in the government

Clinton model v Obama model

I'll vote for the candidate who gets PEOPLE involved. We The People is how democracy works. You The Sponsors, Voters, then the crowd that goes back to sleep is how oligarchy works.

[Flying Dream Blues]

11. Same here...nt

[TexasObserver]

2. "Some may have an outmoded sense of the obstacles women face on the job,"

That is a huge part of the problem. They're tilting at the windmills of their long past youth.

[Demit]

6. Oh? Women are getting paid the same as men now, are they? No more problem in that area anymore?

Good to know things are so radically different from the days of my long-past youth.

[dkf]

12. Salary wise Hillary made more than Bill and Michelle made more than Barack.

My sister makes more than her husband, before my boss retired she made more than her husband.

[TexasObserver]

15. Yes, they are, for the same work and the same experience.

Isn't it odd to you that most of those who feel as you do are over 50 years old?

Women today have the sky as the limit. But if you need an excuse for failure, one is always available.

[Demit]

26. I'm not talking about 'feeling' something is true. I'm talking about what is true.

We just saw the Supreme Court shoot down that woman who sued for wage discrimination—which was continuing right up to the present. I can't argue with all the anecdotal evidence cited in response to my post—maybe it's true in all your cases. Amazing how you all know everyone's salaries and you all talk about it freely so you know without a doubt what your coworkers and your bosses are making. And of course nobody would fudge!

I'll tell you what's odd to me, TexasObserver. What really struck a discordant note. The fact that you just had to make a jab about needing an excuse for failure. That need to put somebody down—for what reason? Age? You feel superior to women older than you?

I realize that every generation separates itself from the previous one, and always does it with disdain. Every generation thinks that its set of experiences is the only possibly valid one. LOL! Your time to be on the receiving end of that will come.

[TexasObserver]

28. You're talking about your perceptions, not reality.

It's an unhappy fact that many women over 50 have spent a lifetime thinking of themselves as victims, and even though that point of view is not shared by women under 40, it remains a constant for many of their seniors.

[hfojvt]

35. those dividing lines are not that set

and I wish you had said 60 instead of 50, since I am 46. My mom is 73 and has never expressed the idea that she's a victim, except maybe for the fact that she grew up poor. I think some women of all ages, if they read certain books, magazines, or take certain classes will accept the idea, not that they are victims, but that in general things are not equal between men and women and that women have the short end of the stick.

[havocmom]

17. Since wages have been losing ground for decades, men are sinking closer to women on average

BUT, there are thousands more women in higher places in business, professions, academia.

The real issue is not gender, but CLASS. Top 1% doesn't think the rest of us should be making nice livings. Their disdain for us and their economic policies are holding down and depressing both genders.

Yeah, I know we still make less on average, but ALL workers save the very top management have lost REAL WAGES and that is more important to address than weighing one's self down with a chip which is disproportionately larger than the real discrepancy in wages.

By the way, I am no spring chicken and have struggled in the work force all my life. Yes, I am angry about who females have been treated and are treated, but I am more concerned with how the CLASS divide is destroying a great nation of PEOPLE.

One can be a feminist and work for what is better for all humans.

Clinton used her gender like a shield instead of a life force. Men can be nurturing too. I'll go with the candidate who nurtures the system so democracy works, not the candidate who games the system so it works for them.

[Recursion]

24. *shrug* I'm a 30 year old man

I've always, in my professional life, been working for women. My female friends make as much as me or more. I've had 6 managers, 5 of whom were women, and the HR people that actually hired or promoted me were without exception women (and, for that matter, were middle aged women who valued seniority and experience more than ability -- this narrative that has emerged cuts both ways). 75% of my professors have been women, as was my dean in undergrad.

There are, I'm aware, still barriers to women at the very top of the boardroom. Down in the trenches, however, I feel very little pity for this or that VP that didn't get promoted when I'm just trying to make rent.

[babylonsister]

3. And I don't fit either category!

:cry:
I'm middle-aged, don't work outside the home, but I'm more optimistic than most, and I have supported Obama since I figured Kucinich didn't have a shot. Clinton never entered into my personal decision of who I'd support.

Why doesn't anyone ever consider trust or history as a reason Clinton wasn't embraced wholeheartedly?
No more bashing from me, but all these people who try to psychoanalyze why people voted the way they did make me laugh. For every example they can find, there's someone like me to make them look silly.

[dkf]

7. I agree that Hillary had other problems, but I also agree with this

article that I didn't connect to the historic nature of Hillary's run.

I simply don't believe that a woman can't be elected President and I don't think it was a once in a lifetime opportunity.

[Lisa0825]

4. Great post.

I was just talking about this to friends at the Texas Democratic Convention this weekend. I find it insulting when women talk about no other women being able to run for President in their lifetimes. That's an insult to all the strong women out there, like Sebelius for example. And I am sure more will continue to emerge as more and more rise to high profile roles.

[TwilightGardener]

8. I was for Obama from the start--never supported Hillary, and certainly

would not have done it based on gender. Having a female in the WH is not something I honestly care that much about. I believe it will happen within the next two decades, and it will be a good thing when it happens, but mostly I want a good and competent President, no matter what's between the legs.

[Independent-Voter]

9. Sounds about right. Hillary's Bitter NOW crowd is hurting the Dems chances at the WH

[melody]

13. I don't vote for someone because of his/her race or gender.

Simple as that. I didn't support Bill in the primaries either.

How nice of someone to explain to us why we do things.

[rodeodance]

16. Another divisive article that divides

[Independent-Voter]

18. It's reality though.

[havocmom]

20. Yep, and there lies the problem for a few.

[havocmom]

19. If a decent analysis doesn't fit your own view, it divides?

How democratic of you.

[romana]

23. It's the labeling that's divisive

I think it's the phrasing that seems divisive. Many women who voted for Clinton did so for a lot of reasons, and one of them was probably a very positive sense of making history. Here was a tough, smart, accomplished woman who had a real shot at clinching the nomination. Nothing pessimistic about it, IMO. This was part of (and I want to emphasize PART OF, there were many other reasons) I voted for Clinton in the primary. My vote was very optimistic and I am proud to be part of history, just as many people who voted for Barack Obama probably felt they were playing a part in history, too. This article belittles the historic aspect of this campaign by dividing people into labels of "pessimist" and "optimist" IMO.

[BlooInBloo]

21. Sounds like a female-ized version of Esquire's "The Cynic and Senator Obama".

[sarge43]

22. I am so sick of being told that I have to vote for someone because

we share a label. Worse, if I don't vote for someone I'm without question a bigot or male chauvinist in drag.

Labels: I'm 65, white and retired military, but I'd set myself on fire before I'd vote for John McCain. Labels and shared experiences (sort of) be damned, he would be a disaster - more Bushist.

Thought experiment: Had Elizabeth Dole become the Republican nominee for POTUS, would you have voted for her because she is a woman and the feminist cause needs a woman POTUS to prove something?

Because a candidate belongs this or that group doesn't necessarily mean the other members of this or that group will benefit. McCain, for example, is against expanding education benefits for veterans.

[TahitiNut]

31. I wonder whether some of these folks would like us white males to emulate THEIR rationales?

I've fought bigotry and sexism in both my job and personal life my entire life. I've committed "career suicide" rather than cooperate with bigots and sexists. I've devoted much time and money supporting NAACP, NOW, and GLBT organizations. I have never once voted to advance "white males." I've always voted as a "human being." I was drafted (while women were NOT) and served in Viet Nam and came back to ill treatment, much from those "poor oppressed" females. I have not flagged nor overreacted to such treatment. If I were to emulate many of the asinine "Hillary supporters" it'd be a corruption of my integrity - appalling shit.

I'm so sick and tired of being told I "can't understand" it's nauseating. The very notion that the rationales for supporting a candidate "can't be understood" by those without the 'proper' genetalia and skin color is beyond divisive. It's an admission of fundamental illegitimacy in the political realm itself.

[sarge43]

32. I know. When I wasn't pissed about it, I found it funny that

we servewomen were accused by many in the feminist movement of "sleeping with the enemy" solely because we were in the military. Sleeping, in many cases, yes; enemy, in most cases, no.

For the record, women played no part in the draft restriction during Nam. At the time there were no women in any power position in the military (women were capped at O-5), on the Supreme Court bench which backed the military's decision in at least two cases, one of which was brought by a woman. And of course, no woman CinC, SecDef and damn few in congress. Please don't blame women; a lot of us didn't like it either.

Another thing, until mid-70's by law only 2% of the active duty force could be female. Except for a short period during WWII there has always been more women volunteers than available slots.

The draft existed principally to provide cannon fodder, so the military could rightly say thanks to the combat restriction there was no point in drafting women as they couldn't serve in the combat MOS.

Finally, there wasn't and isn't any prohibition on drafting women under the critical skills claus. The Supremes ruled that the military doesn't have to draft women. Never said it couldn't. Toward the end of WWII, Congress was within a month of authorizing the drafting of nurses (until mid-50's only women could serve in the Nurse Corps).

FWIW

[peace13]

25. After 'Bosnia' anyone who voted for Hill was in denial!

I don't care what gender or if s/he was optimistically pessimistic or vice versa. If we haven't learned that a liar in the WH is not good , what have we learned? My position had nothing to do with race or gender!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

27. I absolutely believe that women face sexism in the workplace and Hillary faced sexism in campaigning

But I *do* believe that a woman will be president. I don't hate Hillary Clinton and I would have gladly voted for her were she to be the nominee.

[ShortnFiery]

34. No, HRC was in a position of POWER. As such she was NOT discriminated against.

If anything, her TOUTING the notion that she represents "all women" helped more than hurt her.

You're being PUNKED if you honestly believe "a Clinton" - the spouse of a former President was discriminated against ... it was all to The Positive until her ARROGANCE blew the campaign.

Arrogance is not a gender specific fault but a TRUE characteristic that sunk HRC's campaign.

[BklynChick]

29. interesting distinction.

[TexasObserver]

30. This article is very accurate, and goes to the heart of the AGE divide among women

There is a big reason many older women found Hillary's chronic appeals to sexism attractive, and younger women almost completely rejected them in favor of the promise of Obama's campaign. Younger women do not have the same lifelong chip on their shoulder. They do not think of themselves as victims. They do not believe they have less opportunity than men.

[ShortnFiery]

33. This article is BUNK. We're talking CIVIL RIGHTS that can't be sliced and diced into neat

packages. The traditional feminist groups cared mostly for middle income white women and did not bolster women of color.

The issue is COMPLEX.

I don't vote identity politics or else I'd only cast a ballot for WOMEN who have ancestors from Southern Germany. :crazy:

There's no sense to be made from this BUNK because you must also tease out factors such as ethnic group, socioeconomic factors and geographical location before you can LOOK AT GENDER. Good luck with that! :eyes:

Time to support *HUMANITY* and stop hyper-focusing on one multifaceted voting bloc.

p.s. I'm pushing 50 y.o. and an Army Vet = so kindly refrain from stereotyping us old broads? Many of us were treated unfairly but came through without said "chip on our shoulder" against men. :shrug:

[TBF]

36. A lot of generalizations.... but I wouldn't expect much from the MSM

I am a 41-year old former career woman who had children in her late 30's and decided to stay home with them. My husband's income is more than enough for us to do this easily, and I don't regret the decision to leave the workplace behind.

I voted for Obama because he is the candidate who inspired me. I never particularly liked Hillary Clinton - she is a little too centrist and hostile for my taste. But that is just my opinion - I know many admire her. I simply agreed with Obama on philosophies and issues, and loved his spirit of inclusion rather than negativity. Of course I'd love to see more women in top leadership roles in both the private and public sector, but I won't vote based on gender. This time the male candidate happened to be better so I voted for him.