NationStates Jolt Archive

Disclaimer: this is not a US election thread, despite discussing Hillary Clinton. Also it is not meant to slander her or downplay her accomplishments, as I consider her a very intelligent woman. I also believe a woman can do anything a man can, including being a competent leader of a country. Okay, on to the OP....

With the appearance of the first strong woman contender for the White House, I figured I'd reflect upon female politicians and feminism. While I am no expert on feminism, a few quarters ago in class we discussed Margaret Thatcher as being non-feminist when looking at her path to power. This argument largely came from the fact that she married a wealthy man who financed her law education and helped to achieve her goals. I feel that one could possibly make the same claim when discussing Hillary Clinton, considering, like it or not, much of her appeal comes from her last name and connection to her husband. Without her husband, she is no doubt an accomplished woman, but I wonder if she would have enough influence to run, as all of her elected political offices come after the White House.

This isn't really meant to discuss their views on womens issues, or if they are feminists in an ideological sense, but more to investigate if you think both Thatcher and/or Clinton achieved their power through a conservative and anti-feminist pathway of using the influence or status of your husband. Of course this view hinges on an idea of feminism which stresses self reliance, and you may disagree with my conception. Also one could include men like John Kerry, who married into wealth, even though he had a family name before that.

So everyone, does exploiting the benefits of a wealthy or powerful spouse reflect poorly on you as a person, especially as a woman who is trying to assert independence and equality as a feminist? Also if you have experience of other female politicians, did they too have an influential or wealthy husband who helped them?

I say, when they're trying to keep you down, fight your way up with whatever you have on hand. Women fight dirty because the fight wasn't fair from the start.

Anyway, the same argument could be made about many men. Bush would never be president if his father hadn't been rich and powerful. Few are the powerful people who rise from nothing.

I say, when they're trying to keep you down, fight your way up with whatever you have on hand. Women fight dirty because the fight wasn't fair from the start.

Anyway, the same argument could be made about many men. Bush would never be president if his father hadn't been rich and powerful. Few are the powerful people who rise from nothing.

I guess you are right, it's not really about getting by on your own merits anyway.

But do you think it says anything about our society that the most successful US female candidate comes from a political marriage? Do you think a woman who worked up the ranks in Congress or as a governor would get this far without the name power?

I say, when they're trying to keep you down, fight your way up with whatever you have on hand. Women fight dirty because the fight wasn't fair from the start.

Anyway, the same argument could be made about many men. Bush would never be president if his father hadn't been rich and powerful. Few are the powerful people who rise from nothing.I rose from nothing.

When I was born I emerged out of a Black Hole leading an army of Daleks on a campaign of universal genocide.

*Exterminate*

*Exterminate*

It depends what you mean by Feminism. Historical feminism is dead, thank god. While women and men should be equal, they should not be THE SAME, as was touted by fem-nazi's in the past.

Modern feminists take pride in childraising, feminine qualities, and fight for things such as equal pay, not equal jobs. They realize that a woman is probably not your best bet to pull someone out of a burning building, but if you're both VP's of the same company with the same degree and the same experience, you better be getting the same paycheck.

Anyhow, Hilary Clinton makes women look bad. She is exactly what the modern feminist movement doesn't need. She is a stereotypical "bitch" who is heartless and devoid of any honor. Bring a real woman into the fray and I'd vote for her in a second. Hilary does not fit the bill.

It would be nice if democrats could at least stick to a consistent story.

So everyone, does exploiting the benefits of a wealthy or powerful spouse reflect poorly on you as a person, especially as a woman who is trying to assert independence and equality as a feminist? Also if you have experience of other female politicians, did they too have an influential or wealthy husband who helped them?

Yes and no. If you found yourself a rich and influential husband with the clear goal in mind that this might further your career, I personally would have a moral problem. If, however, you fell in love with and married a rich and influential guy, you'd be daft not to use the connections he's got. It might even be inevitable to make some use of it, as people might recognise the name anyway.
It's a matter of motives for me, mostly.

As for the feminist aspect (as the below goes both ways, really), I would value you by the way you use the power once you got it. Thatcher most certainly was not a feminist, quite the contrary I would say.

The question about other female politicians and their rise to power is a bit silly, isn't it? Or have you never heard of Angela Merkel before? ;)

It depends what you mean by Feminism. Historical feminism is dead, thank god. While women and men should be equal, they should not be THE SAME, as was touted by fem-nazi's in the past.

Modern feminists take pride in childraising, feminine qualities, and fight for things such as equal pay, not equal jobs. They realize that a woman is probably not your best bet to pull someone out of a burning building, but if you're both VP's of the same company with the same degree and the same experience, you better be getting the same paycheck.

Anyhow, Hilary Clinton makes women look bad. She is exactly what the modern feminist movement doesn't need. She is a stereotypical "bitch" who is heartless and devoid of any honor. Bring a real woman into the fray and I'd vote for her in a second. Hilary does not fit the bill.

While I don't really agree with all of your characterizations, this is what I'm trying to get at. People like to paint Hillary Clinton as a "femi-nazi" this hard as nails man-like woman, but when you get down too it, she too relies on traditional "feminine" idea of living off the bounty of her husband. Her success as a politician hinges on her status as a wife of Bill Clinton.

The question about other female politicians and their rise to power is a bit silly, isn't it? Or have you never heard of Angela Merkel before? ;)

Of course I've heard of her as well as Nancy Pelosi, Benazir Bhutto, etc. I was more interested if she or other female politicians were boosted by a wealthy husband or whatnot on their path to power. From what I researched on Wikipedia later, it seems like Merkel's husband didn't play a large role in her political ascension.

Of course I've heard of her as well as Nancy Pelosi, Benazir Bhutto, etc. I was more interested if she or other female politicians were boosted by a wealthy husband or whatnot on their path to power. From what I researched on Wikipedia later, it seems like Merkel's husband didn't play a large role in her political ascension.

None at all, I think. Not that I like her politics, though, but she got where she is mostly by her own merits.

I also believe a woman can do anything a man can, including being a competent leader of a country.


When was the last time we had a compotent male leader of a country? Of course I suppose one could argue the point of exactly what one means by competent. I mean we've had several rulers in history who weren't completly incompotent. But I'd like to think that there's more to being compotent then simply not being incompotent.

I'd settle for an intelligent leader, regardless of gender. Currently, the best bet in America is McCain.. and he'd barely make compotent. As for other female politicians. There's not enough of them.


So everyone, does exploiting the benefits of a wealthy or powerful spouse reflect poorly on you as a person, especially as a woman who is trying to assert independence and equality as a feminist? Also if you have experience of other female politicians, did they too have an influential or wealthy husband who helped them?

No. It doesn't reflect poorly so much. Hillary just will not be a comportent leader.. I doubt she'll be absolute crap, certainly better then Bush. I wish there were more female politicians to choose from.

Anyhow, Hilary Clinton makes women look bad. She is exactly what the modern feminist movement doesn't need. She is a stereotypical "bitch" who is heartless and devoid of any honor. Bring a real woman into the fray and I'd vote for her in a second. Hilary does not fit the bill.

While I don't really agree with all of your characterizations, this is what I'm trying to get at. People like to paint Hillary Clinton as a "femi-nazi" this hard as nails man-like woman, but when you get down too it, she too relies on traditional "feminine" idea of living off the bounty of her husband. Her success as a politician hinges on her status as a wife of Bill Clinton.

Well here we are with stereotypical depictions of females so looks like feminism clearly has a long way to go.

Hillary Clinton is very smart and would have done very well for herself without Bill Clinton, she has not simply hung on to his coat tails and taken a free ride. It's more what was intimated in the original OP, despite her obvious intelligence, could she have made it this far if she wasn't a good wife to an also intelligent man?

One could say she would have been a better candidate for president than Bill Clinton, with his proclivities for cheating and donuts, but a patriarchal society means she was less likely to succeeed.

To call her a bitch is also to make a statement without even knowing her, qualities that would be admired in a man are interpreted as 'bitchy' in a woman, a strong, determined woman at that.

Yet again, a pretence of discussing feminism borne of dislike of a particular person. One could start to analyse this as people who feel threatened by a strong women, perhaps pointing to their own weaknesses and hang ups.

Bring a real woman into the fray and I'd vote for her in a second

Pray tell, what is your definition of a real woman?

To call her a bitch is also to make a statement without even knowing her, qualities that would be admired in a man are interpreted as 'bitchy' in a woman, a strong, determined woman at that.

^This.

Yet again, a pretence of discussing feminism borne of dislike of a particular person. One could start to analyse this as people who feel threatened by a strong women, perhaps pointing to their own weaknesses and hang ups.

I assure you, this is not my intent, as I stated in the OP, I have nothing but respect for her and all other women in office. The only feminist text I have read is The Second Sex by Simone deBeauvoir, which I read as emphasizing the female as an independent actor in the world. Maybe this can't be extrapolated to everything, or deBeavoir is out of date, but despite all of her successes as a lawyer and organizer, she is in many ways still dependent on political capital of her husband. I actually believe as you suggested that this is more a symptom of a patriarchal society, and not her fault at all but I thought it was interesting in light of her bid for the presidency to examine the state of feminism in the USA. I assure you, it is borne of no hang ups. When I was addressing Steel Butterfly I was merely pointing out the bizarre and contradictory attitudes people have on Hillary Clinton, calling her mannish yet at the same time apparently afraid of her existence as a woman.

Wouldn't it be even more 'anti-feminist' of Hilary Clinton to not persue politics and stay at home living off of her husbands money rather than work hard and try to become president?

Wouldn't it be even more 'anti-feminist' of Hilary Clinton to not persue politics and stay at home living off of her husbands money rather than work hard and try to become president?

Of course, and what I think wasn't articulated quite well is that its not her fault, but in a way she lives off her husbands political capital, if that makes any sense. I actually think she is quite feminist, and an accomplished person. I just find it a bit telling that our first viable female candidate is the wife of a former president.

*snip*

Fair enough, it was the phrasing of your sentences perhaps, which were neutral and I probably took the wrong interpretation.

...she too relies on traditional "feminine" idea of living off the bounty of her husband. Her success as a politician hinges on her status as a wife of Bill Clinton.

I felt that these were buying into preconceived notions of who she is, that she purposely married Bill Clinton as a means to an end.

If you look at Margaret Thatcher, one might say it's better for a woman to marry a non-ambitious husband, someone like Dennis, nice enough chap but not gunning for power. I'm not sure who Angela Merkel's husband is but I don't hear much about him so I really couldn't say.

I'd say that Hillary Clinton has been hampered by her marriage to Bill Clinton if one looks at it objectively, but that disregards the idea that people marry because they love someone rather than as a means to further their career.

Well here we are with stereotypical depictions of females so looks like feminism clearly has a long way to go.


If feminisms hope is to overcome stereotypical depictions then it will have a sore time of work ahead of them. Stereotypes exists for everyone and are used quite frequently in refrence to one group of people or another.


Hillary Clinton is very smart and would have done very well for herself without Bill Clinton, she has not simply hung on to his coat tails and taken a free ride. It's more what was intimated in the original OP, despite her obvious intelligence, could she have made it this far if she wasn't a good wife to an also intelligent man?


I would not know if one could call either one of those individuals particularly intelligent personally. Hillary is in position as a canidate for president because of her tie to Bill Clinton. But it's not the name that garners her attention so much as an assumption. There are many who attribute the policies that Clinton enacted while in office that were actually good to Hillary based on the scandal that Bill was tied in. Most have actually forgotten that Bill Clinton was actually a passable president. Those who remember that he was tend to attribute this to Hillary and not Bill.


One could say she would have been a better candidate for president than Bill Clinton, with his proclivities for cheating and donuts, but a patriarchal society means she was less likely to succeeed.


One could say this.. but I hardly think it's true. Bill Clinton was at least passable. And mildly compotent. I imagine Hillary won't be a great.. or even good president... perhaps she will be a decent president, as I believe Bill was.. but I don't think so.


Also, i would be more inclined to vote for Hillary if she had no connection to Bill in all honesty. Though I still wouldn't be so inclined that I would.


To call her a bitch is also to make a statement without even knowing her, qualities that would be admired in a man are interpreted as 'bitchy' in a woman, a strong, determined woman at that.


I don't find any of Hillary's qualities to be admirable, in a man or woman... She is a nuisance. An annoying blowhard. But to be fair, most presedential canidates have fallen into this category in history. Most politicians tend to be this kind of person. It's sad but true. The one whose loudest and blows the most hot air tends to be the one put in power. Ridiculous....

Fair enough, it was the phrasing of your sentences perhaps, which were neutral and I probably took the wrong interpretation.



I felt that these were buying into preconceived notions of who she is, that she purposely married Bill Clinton as a means to an end.

If you look at Margaret Thatcher, one might say it's better for a woman to marry a non-ambitious husband, someone like Dennis, nice enough chap but not gunning for power. I'm not sure who Angela Merkel's husband is but I don't hear much about him so I really couldn't say.

I'd say that Hillary Clinton has been hampered by her marriage to Bill Clinton if one looks at it objectively, but that disregards the idea that people marry because they love someone rather than as a means to further their career.

No problem, I have been having some trouble articulating my point tonight, and the more I think about it, the more I'm realizing the cases of the two women are quite different. I apologize if I sounded sexist.

Hilllary married Bill before he had any real promise, so I don't believe she married for money or influence, and I think some of the things I said were wrong and I'm going to change. I didn't mean to say that she somehow thrives off of this as some sort of super ambitious schemer, but I think the point still remains that her viability, despite all her accomplishments, relies on her husband. Thatcher I guess married for money, I really don't know, but Hillary seems to have really married for love, and in a perfect world, I think you are right that Bill could have hampered her, but in reality, his name now stands in the way of any objective views of her. There is also the fact that Thatcher wasn't elected nationwide, which could further distance the two cases.

What I'm trying to get at is like you said, is his name the only reason she is where she is. And frankly if that's the case, which I think it is, it is sad, because she is every bit as qualified as any other candidate, and it shows the continuing gender gap, where to get past that glass ceiling, you might just have to rely on your husband. My main point is that despite all of the hooplah over a woman candidate, underneath the same gender problems remain.

What bothers me about her is the same thing that bothered me about Bill. The ruthless, self-serving, "win-at-all-costs" attitude. Her ego will, in the end, accomplish nothing but putting John McCain in the White House.

I would not know if one could call either one of those individuals particularly intelligent personally.

They're both very intelligent, I hope you're half as accomplished.

Clinton was graduated from Georgetown University and in 1968 won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University. He received a law degree from Yale University in 1973, and entered politics in Arkansas.

[In 1975]..he married Hillary Rodham, a graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law School.

To those who think she simply ran on Bill Clinton's coat tails

Following pressure from some fellow students, she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address. Her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes. She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement. She also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally-syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers.

During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment. The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.

By then, Rodham was viewed as someone with a bright political future; Democratic political organizer and consultant Betsey Wright had moved from Texas to Washington the previous year to help guide her career; Wright thought Rodham had the potential to become a future senator or president

However...

As she later wrote, "I chose to follow my heart instead of my head." She thus followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas, rather than staying in Washington where career prospects were brighter.

One could very easily argue that she'd have done better without Bill Clinton but, for a 'heartless bitch', she actually followed her heart.

What bothers me about her is the same thing that bothered me about Bill. The ruthless, self-serving, "win-at-all-costs" attitude. Her ego will, in the end, accomplish nothing but putting John McCain in the White House.

While I understand your wish to voice your opinions on the candidate, I want this discussion to center more on feminism and her candidacy. Although I think it is very interesting how women politicians are always classified as ruthless. I mean Margaret Thatcher was "Iron Lady," Catherine the Great was slandered in a similar way, even the Dowager Empress Ci Xi. I think pretty much all politicians are ruthless and probably need to be somewhat. Maybe it's in reaction to our concept of women as polite and somewhat frail. Women in politics might act tougher to overcompensate for what society sees as a natural weakness, or maybe it's all concocted by us.

They're both very intelligent, I hope you're half as accomplished.

Being accomplished has nothing to do with intellect. Nor the reverese. I'm sure they may be smart. But I like to think there is more to intelligence then simply being smart. I am not implying they're stupid, far from it, but I'm sure our definitions of intelligence differs greatly. But it is a semantic argument. And really doesn't bare into this conversation at all.


One could very easily argue that she'd have done better without Bill Clinton but, for a 'heartless bitch', she actually followed her heart.

One could make that argument most assuredly, and one would probably be accurte. I will state that I still believe that she probaly wouldn't have ever made it to the presedential race without her connection to Bill... I can't say for certain... though her connection certainly accelerated, if not led to, her bid for president.


All in all. My problem with Hillary is my problem with every other politician... ever. I suppose that in and of itself is an accomplishment for feminism. As I understand, feminists primary goal is to achieve equality. And in her own way, Hillary has proven that she can be just as big of a moronic blowhard as any male politician.

I would also like to state that, in my opinion, no one has done more to hinder the cause of feminism as Oprah Winfrey.

Edit: I would also like to state that I do believe a woman can make it to the canidacy for president without such ties... but Hillary Clinton is not such a woman.

Is it only me that wonders whether Bill Clinton would have made president without the political acumen of his wife?

Hilary had already made a name for herself and was on a bright career path when she met and married Bill. Did she really lose all her ambitions because she got married? Or did she and Bill, sharing an ambition, decide to pool their resources in a bid for the White House? If so, it doesn't take much to see that a woman is a far less palatable choice both to voters and to the factions that must be courted, especially a few years ago during Bill's campaign. A man with a devoted and hard-working wife is much easier to swallow than a ruthless bitch with a sop of a husband, no? Perhaps if sexism wasn't an issue, Hilary would have been president instead of Bill...

Is it only me that wonders whether Bill Clinton would have made president without the political acumen of his wife?

Hilary had already made a name for herself and was on a bright career path when she met and married Bill. Did she really lose all her ambitions because she got married? Or did she and Bill, sharing an ambition, decide to pool their resources in a bid for the White House? If so, it doesn't take much to see that a woman is a far less palatable choice both to voters and to the factions that must be courted, especially a few years ago during Bill's campaign. A man with a devoted and hard-working wife is much easier to swallow than a ruthless bitch with a sop of a husband, no? Perhaps if sexism wasn't an issue, Hilary would have been president instead of Bill...

BINGO.

pretty much ALL political men rely on their wives to get them to the top. the support of the wife may not be obvious but it is crucial.

while barack is out serving the poor, representing illinois in the senate, running for president, michelle is making (more than) enough money to raise a family and live well. if she werent the refined accomplished woman she is, his candidacy would be doomed.

hillary has supported bill all their married life. everything they do, they do together. so now its her turn to be in front. she has earned her place there.

i might add that john mccain married a freaking heiress whose family fortune is enough for them to have a family airplane. if you dont think that THAT has helped him get where he is, (figuratively and literally) you arent looking at the full picture.

Snip

Quite true. I didn't know that about McCain. However I was going to point out that Obama has the support of Oprah. And how many votes is that going to get him? Probably just as many as Hillary will get for being the Former First Lady.

I wouldn't be suprised of Oprah hasn't been supporting and financing Obama's campaign for a time without coming out in clear favor to him till recently. Now, I'm not implying that Obama and Oprah have a relationship of anything more then friendship. The point is it can be just as significant to have a powerful and influential woman supporting you as it is to have a powerful and influential man.

To call her a bitch is also to make a statement without even knowing her, qualities that would be admired in a man are interpreted as 'bitchy' in a woman, a strong, determined woman at that.

I'd say she's hypocritical and an unscrupulous liar based on her actions to get elected. Gender is irrelevant to character.

BINGO.

pretty much ALL political men rely on their wives to get them to the top. the support of the wife may not be obvious but it is crucial.

while barack is out serving the poor, representing illinois in the senate, running for president, michelle is making (more than) enough money to raise a family and live well. if she werent the refined accomplished woman she is, his candidacy would be doomed.

hillary has supported bill all their married life. everything they do, they do together. so now its her turn to be in front. she has earned her place there.

i might add that john mccain married a freaking heiress whose family fortune is enough for them to have a family airplane. if you dont think that THAT has helped him get where he is, (figuratively and literally) you arent looking at the full picture.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, as I stated in the OP with reference to John Kerry. I didn't know about McCain, but I'm glad I do now. But I think that there is a very powerful societal double standard, which for me means that she has gotten somewhere equally accomplished women most likely wouldn't. It may be the power structure, or the American people, but I think her accomplishments still aren't enough in the current American political landscape. I mean, there are and have been countless well deserving women politicians in the past, but they were never seen as viable, and I don't buy that society suddenly changed.

I really think I'm having trouble articulating my point. But I think it is telling that the first viable female candidate for president of the US is the wife of former president. I think we have a long way to go to achieve real political equality.

Just to segue a bit. I would like to talk about the kind of person it is that gets to the top end of politics. The difference between a female politician and a women human being or a male politician and a man, is much larger than the difference between a man and a woman.

Politicians, be they men or women, seem to be cut from the same 2 or 3 bolts of cloth.

For me, I'd prefer a man in the white house, as he is allowed to show compassion. It seems that too many women politicians need to show they can be as hard as any many, and become way too hard. A stereotypical women is meant to be nurturing. Thatcher wasn't. FDRs new deal, and Truman's Marshall plan were a lot more nurturing.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, as I stated in the OP with reference to John Kerry. I didn't know about McCain, but I'm glad I do now. But I think that there is a very powerful societal double standard, which for me means that she has gotten somewhere equally accomplished women most likely wouldn't. It may be the power structure, or the American people, but I think her accomplishments still aren't enough in the current American political landscape. I mean, there are and have been countless well deserving women politicians in the past, but they were never seen as viable, and I don't buy that society suddenly changed.

I really think I'm having trouble articulating my point. But I think it is telling that the first viable female candidate for president of the US is the wife of former president. I think we have a long way to go to achieve real political equality.


dont get me wrong, its not as if hillary clinton is a shining example of radical feminism. she, like most women, is conflicted in her feminism. after all the woman's husband sniffs after pussy like a blood hound and she supports him and attacks the women he consorts with. and she has willingly taken second place to his ambitions when SHE was the one who had the brighter looking political future when they got together. im sure there isnt a (political) thing he has done that she hasnt had major input on.

so now when her own political experience is not that much more substantial than obamas she wants to claim that being a political wife counts as major experience.

i guess its a resume we arent used to dealing with. at least not for president of the united states.

I'd say she's hypocritical and an unscrupulous liar based on her actions to get elected. Gender is irrelevant to character.

Show me a nominee on either side who hasn't told lies and you may have a point - it's the election for president.

However, you are right in that gender is irrelevant to character, it's the prism through which that character is perceived that makes the difference. Of course, when I say gender makes a difference, I certainly don't mean the enlightened colour and gender blind inhabitants of NSG - a forum of Jesus's no less.

I'm not sure how much this relates to the question overall but it's interesting in terms of gender perception.

In rating hypothetical instructors, students have been found to give lower ratings to a female instructor portrayed as not socializing with her students outside the classroom, whereas socializing had no relationship to ratings of male instructors.

The sociable female instructors received about the same ratings as did the sociable and the unsociable male instructor; the unsociable female instructor was rated less positively than any of the others (Kierstead, D'Agostino, & Dill, 1988).

In a similar vein, student ratings of female and male instructors portrayed in a slide-tape presentation as smiling or not smiling showed a bias against the woman who did not fall into the "nice" feminine stereotype. The unsmiling man was rated somewhat more favorably than the smiling man, but the smiling woman was rated much more favorably than the unsmiling woman (Kierstead et al., 1988). These findings parallel others showing that women instructors are judged more harshly than men if they do not meet stereotypically feminine standards of behavior with respect to friendliness, student contact and support -- and that students do not necessarily give higher ratings to men who give them greater time and attention (Bennett, 1982; Martin, 1984).

Interestingly, students of both genders hold women faculty to these higher standards.

It's from an interesting presentation linked here (http://gstudies.asp.radford.edu/sources/nz/powraddr.htm).

It may be the case of requiring a strong role model and this can explain different perceptions to female leaders in different countries. Argentina, for example, is more comfortable with women in the political sphere.

Interestingly, the Argentine women were more likely to imagine themselves as politicians than the US women were (27% vs. 12%). However, their responses also indicated that they anticipated disliking that role. In fact, of all the women in both samples who used the reason "dislike the position" to explain the low likelihood of their imagined role "coming true", almost two-thirds (63%) were imagining a political position. This notion of disliking the role came up much more often with politics than with any other field.

So to the original question, it probably isn't coincidence that the first female contender for president is at least related to a former president, though I still hold that Hillary Clinton may well have done better without Bill.

bell hooks for President!

Hillary Clinton's problem is that she's the wrong woman.

Modern feminists take pride in childraising, feminine qualities, and fight for things such as equal pay, not equal jobs. They realize that a woman is probably not your best bet to pull someone out of a burning building, but if you're both VP's of the same company with the same degree and the same experience, you better be getting the same paycheck.

Many companies pay their top executives on performance and if they are able to reach their objectives. So should they be paid the same amount if one is working harder and more productive for the company than the other? (it doesn't matter which)

Now I am sure that both men and women in politics in some cases do get where they are because of who they are married to or who they know, it is almost the only way to get into politics, I do know that the ALP has party rules stating that 40% of candidates running at each election must be women, but then that puts doubt on why she was selected was it because she was the best person to run in some cases yes in others no it was because she was female, there are some that are excellent and do deserve to be there but then there are others who married a high party member and because they males are not allowed to compete to be selected they are automatically put in. Now that really promotes equality and rewards people for their skills rather than their gender.

Another thing in regards to jobs every now and then the papers put some rubbish in on how women do not have a big representation in a certain industry and claim that it is proof of discrimination in that industry and somehow society. Of course what the feminists and the media fail to realise is that women may not want to work in that industry but would rather work in some other industry or profession. I accompanied my cousin to an information session he had to attend before he started his apprenticeship later this year, of the 35 people they hired for these apprenticeships only one was female, this was brought to our attention by the speaker and said that while they are an equal opportunity employer they can't hire more females because they don't get many applications, he said that during this intake only two females applied and the other one failed to get the job because she failed the aptitude tests.

Show me a nominee on either side who hasn't told lies and you may have a point - it's the election for president.

What's election got to do with it? All it does is just show how far one is willing to sacrifice character to get what one wants. The more lies one tells, the more outrageous they are, the more they are willing to sacrifice principles for a perceived advantage, even if it means sacrificing the whole, the more it speaks of the person's character.

To call her a bitch is also to make a statement without even knowing her, qualities that would be admired in a man are interpreted as 'bitchy' in a woman, a strong, determined woman at that.

While it may be true in some people, I don't think it's a good idea to assume that anyone who doesn't like certain qualities in Clinton would not equally dislike them in a man.

One of the interesting - and disturbing - things I've seen related to feminism lately is the number of "feminists" who think a woman who does not vote for Clinton is somehow anti-feminist. Apparently, we should all band together to get a woman in the presidency - even if we don't think she is the best candidate.

In my mind, this message is actually anti-feminist in and of itself. The point is not to get a woman in a position at all costs. It is to ensure that gender does not adversely affect someone's chances at getting the position. I don't care what genitalia Clinton has, I don't think she's the best person for the job. Voting for her just because she's a woman would be no different than refusing to vote for her just because she's a woman.

One of the interesting - and disturbing - things I've seen related to feminism lately is the number of "feminists" who think a woman who does not vote for Clinton is somehow anti-feminist. Apparently, we should all band together to get a woman in the presidency - even if we don't think she is the best candidate.

In my mind, this message is actually anti-feminist in and of itself. The point is not to get a woman in a position at all costs. It is to ensure that gender does not adversely affect someone's chances at getting the position. I don't care what genitalia Clinton has, I don't think she's the best person for the job. Voting for her just because she's a woman would be no different than refusing to vote for her just because she's a woman.

yeah. i just dont feel that hillary deserves my vote because she is a woman.

its not "feminist" to vote for the lesser candidate because it would be cool to have a female president.

I don't care what genitalia Clinton has, I don't think she's the best person for the job. Voting for her just because she's a woman would be no different than refusing to vote for her just because she's a woman.
That does confuse me. Blacks voting for Obama because he's black, or for Hillary because she is a woman is just as bad as WASPs voting for McCain because he's not black and not a woman.
I just can't see how the people doing this don't see the cotradiction and hypocrisy in their position. If I was from the USA, I'd vote Obama, because he looks like the best candidate (this from a 5th generation on both sides of the family white male Australian).

That does confuse me. Blacks voting for Obama because he's black, or for Hillary because she is a woman is just as bad as WASPs voting for McCain because he's not black and not a woman.
I just can't see how the people doing this don't see the cotradiction and hypocrisy in their position. If I was from the USA, I'd vote Obama, because he looks like the best candidate (this from a 5th generation on both sides of the family white male Australian).

blacks dont vote for obama JUST because he is black and women dont vote for hillary JUST because she is female.

but given that both candidates have a record and a platform that is attractive to democratic voters with only tiny differences between them, the deciding factor for certain voters is race or gender.

its not as if black americans supported alan keyes (black conservative republican) in droves.

female voters wont vote for a bad candidate just because she is a woman.

in THIS race, women can lean toward clinton knowing that its not going to hurt the issues that they favor. black americans can vote for obama over clinton because he is an equally good candidate. you have to make the decision between essentially equal candidates on SOME basis. race or gender is as good as any.

in THIS race, women can lean toward clinton knowing that its not going to hurt the issues that they favor. black americans can vote for obama over clinton because he is an equally good candidate. you have to make the decision between essentially equal candidates on SOME basis. race or gender is as good as any.

All depends on the issues they favor. I can't vote for Clinton because I think she is far too authoritarian. It has nothing to do with her gender or Obama's ethnicity.

There are differences between them.

blacks dont vote for obama JUST because he is black and women dont vote for hillary JUST because she is female.

but given that both candidates have a record and a platform that is attractive to democratic voters with only tiny differences between them, the deciding factor for certain voters is race or gender.

Unfortunately. :(


female voters wont vote for a bad candidate just because she is a woman.

I counter with Judy Martz, governor of Montana (my state) from 2001-2005.

Judy Martz, self-described "lapdog of industry," said to the women's lobby, "My husband has never battered me, but then again, I've never given him a reason to."


in THIS race, women can lean toward clinton knowing that its not going to hurt the issues that they favor. black americans can vote for obama over clinton because he is an equally good candidate. you have to make the decision between essentially equal candidates on SOME basis. race or gender is as good as any.
Actually, I really would like people to vote on the issues. There are differences. For example, Clinton will "obliterate" Iran (meaning all of the innocent people who don't support the government and who don't want "death to Israel") if it makes any moves. She has also stated that human rights are less important than national security. She supports the death penalty without qualification, whereas Obama's position is more sensitive. She supported the Iraq War and won't apologize for that.

Obama is also better on queer issues, as he explicitly supports policies directed at relief for the trans community.

I'm just saying there are differences that matter to people.

All depends on the issues they favor. I can't vote for Clinton because I think she is far too authoritarian.
Thank you. I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought that.

All depends on the issues they favor. I can't vote for Clinton because I think she is far too authoritarian. It has nothing to do with her gender or Obama's ethnicity.

There are differences between them.

yes there are. but those are subtle differences that arent noticed and perhaps dont matter to everyone.

on the issues, they are all but identical. so to decide between them you have to have some other criteria that isnt anywhere near as important as the issues.

for example, if clinton was pro-gay marriage i might change my mind about supporting obama. she's not, so i find obama's approach to the campaign to be a deciding factor to me.

for example, if clinton was pro-gay marriage i might change my mind about supporting obama. she's not, so i find obama's approach to the campaign to be a deciding factor to me.
Also, I'd like to add that he's still slightly better on LGBT issues. For instance, he seems to be aware that trans people exist.

on the issues, they are all but identical. so to decide between them you have to have some other criteria that isnt anywhere near as important as the issues.

...except they aren't. They are similar and in a black-and-white view of the issues, you might say they're on the same side.

But their actual approaches in many cases are quite different.

Hillary's appeal, or lack thereof, may come from the Clinton name, but it was Bill who married into money and higher station. Hillary was always the more accomplished and politically savvy of the two, and it was only after Bill left office that he made more money than she did. I essentially agree with the idea that she always was the more "presidential", but needed him to pave the way due to the gender bias of the times.

But that is where anything feminist about her ends. She has taken the anti- or old school feminist approach of emulating every not-so-appealing quality of men to prove that she is "tough" enough to be president, rather than highlighting where a woman's natural attitude toward politics may serve the country better. It may be as good for women to see the first serious female candidate for president as it is for blacks to see the first African-American candidate for president, but she is, quite simply, the wrong woman.