Views » April 26, 2007

Why Women Hate Hillary

She reinforces the Genghis Khan principle of American politics that our leaders must be ruthless and macho

By Susan J. Douglas

We sat around the dinner table, a group of 50-something progressive feminists, talking to a friend from England about presidential politics. We were all for Hillary, weren’t we, he asked. Hillary? We hated Hillary. He was taken aback. Weren’t we her base? Wasn’t she one of us? Why did we hate Hillary?

Of course, a lot of people seem to hate Hillary. According to some polls, anywhere from 39 to 50 percent of respondents claim they’d vote against her no matter what; her “negatives” continue to be high. Many of these are Republicans and men. But many are not. According to a Harris poll in March, 52 percent of married women said they would not vote for her. Nearly half of adults say they dislike her personality and her politics. Unlike her husband, people seem to find her cold and don’t see her connecting with everyday people, and this is especially true for married women. Ironically, it is Gen Xers, those between 31 and 42, who give her the most support.

So what gives? For people like my friends and me, her hawkish position on Iraq and her insistence that the U.S. maintain a military presence there even after the troops are withdrawn have been very disappointing. But it’s more than any specific position. Women don’t trust Hillary. They see her as an opportunist; many feel betrayed by her. Why?

Baby boomer women grew up with the Feminine Mystique and then came of age with the Women’s Liberation Movement. As a result, millions of us have spent our lives crafting a compromise—or a fusion—between femininity on the one hand and feminism on the other. And for many of us feminism did not mean trying to be more like men. It meant challenging patriarchy: trying to bring equity to family life, humanizing the workplace, prioritizing women’s issues in politics, and confronting the dangers of militarism and imperialism. And millions of us fought (and continue to fight) these battles wearing lipstick, skirts and a smile: the masquerade of femininity we are compelled to don.

Hillary, by contrast, seems to want to be more like a man in her demeanor and politics, makes few concessions to the social demands of femininity, and yet seems to be only a partial feminist. She seems above us, exempting herself from compromises women have to make every day, while, at the same time, leaving some of the basic tenets of feminism in the dust. We are sold out on both counts. In other words, she seems like patriarchy in sheep’s clothing.

One of progressive feminism’s biggest (and so far, failed) battles has been against the Genghis Khan principle of American politics: that our leaders must be ruthless, macho empire builders fully prepared to drop the big one if they have to and invade anytime, anywhere. When Geraldine Ferraro ran for vice president in 1984, the recurring question was whether she had the cojones to push the red button, as if that is the ultimate criterion for leading the country. And while American politics has, for years, been all about the necessity of displaying masculinity, Bush, Cheney and Rove succeeded in upping the ante after 9/11 so that the sight of John Kerry windsurfing meant he wasn’t man enough to run the country. But now, with the massive failures of this callous macho posture everywhere—a disastrous war, a deeply endangered environment and more people than ever without health insurance—millions are desperate for a new vision and a new model of leadership.

All of this frames many women’s reactions to Hillary. If she’s a feminist, how could she continue to support this war for so long? If she’s such a passionate advocate for children, women and families, how could she countenance the ongoing killing of innocent Iraqi families, and of American soldiers who are also someone’s children? If it would be so revolutionary to have a female as president, why does she feel like the same old poll-driven opportunistic politician who seems to craft her positions accordingly?

Maybe women like me are being extra hard on Hillary because she’s a woman. After all, baby boomer women couldn’t be “as good” as men in school or the workplace; we had to be better, to prove that women deserved equal opportunities. And this is part of the problem too. We don’t want the first female president to be Joe Lieberman in drag, pushing Bush-lite politics. We expect something better.

Clearly, Hillary and her advisors have calculated that for a woman to be elected in this country, she’s got to come across as just as tough as the guys. And maybe they’re right. But so far, Hillary is not getting men with this strategy, and women feel written off. After the dark ages of this pugnacious administration, many of us want to let the light in. We want a break with the past, optimism, and a recommitment to the government caring about and serving the needs of everyday people. We want what feminism began to fight for 40 years ago—humanizing deeply patriarchal institutions. And, ironically, we see candidates like John Edwards or Barack Obama—men—offering just that. If Hillary Clinton wants to be the first female president, then maybe, just maybe, she should actually run as a woman.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
• Or win a subscription to In These Times by taking this short survey!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

  What is 4 + 5?  

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  The “Joe Lieberman in drag” comment is the part I can relate to. My problems with Hilary include her husband. Before becoming President Bill Clinton sat down with people like Alan Greenspan and was told in no uncertain terms about the ascendancy of Globalization. This led to untold jobs going overseas with the help of Nafta,(thanks Bill)
    I also read that he was interviewed, some say inspected, by members of the Bilderberg Society.
  However much he may deny their influence, he managed to not get national health care even with Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. One of his administration recently stated that they either could not “do the politics” or they did not want to “do the politics.”

    I don’t care if Hilary is running partly to get back at the Republicans who have attacked and vilified her and her husband since 1991. Hell! Someone should. But I do question her dedication to health care for all
  and other progressive issues. After all, she came from corporate America before she became a politician or a politician’s wife.

    If I have to pick from a bunch of lacklusters then I pick Edwards. At least health care for him seems to be a priority. I just wish he’d show a little “red-meat” attitude now and then.
                  Tigertiger

  Posted by Tigertiger on Apr 26, 2007 at 2:34 PM

  Hillary Clinton is NOT a progressive and that’s why many people on “the left ” dislike her. She’s a neo-con war hawk and a DLC toady who will run economic policy for the sake of the wealthy and the corporations. With Democrats like her who needs Republicans. That’s what I REALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Why do Republicans HATE her so much when at the end of the day she will side with them, at least on the more important issues.

  Posted by lams712 on Apr 26, 2007 at 2:59 PM

  I personally don’t like the way she came to power. She inherited it from her husband (to be fair, GW inherited it from his father, which also left me cold).

  Some of this article strikes me a just plain silly, for example:

  “And millions of us fought (and continue to fight) these battles wearing lipstick, skirts and a smile: the masquerade of femininity we are compelled to don.”

  What you want to go around naked? No problem. . .

  “After all, baby boomer women couldn’t be “as good” as men in school or the workplace; we had to be better, to prove that women deserved equal opportunities.”

  Yeah, right.

  We should learn from the Bonobos. The females know exactly how to keep the males in line - and happy to boot!

  Posted by wolf on Apr 26, 2007 at 4:11 PM

  Susan’s right on: Hillary has been a disappointment. Too conservative, too controversial, too distant…

  As much as I would like to see a woman president, she is not the one.

  Posted by Marschallin on Apr 26, 2007 at 5:50 PM

  Hillary is not a feminist, she’s a power-player, no different than so many of the men who have entered politics, going back to antiquity. No different than a number of female leaders, e.g. Catherine II of Russia to name only one.

  Now that access to power is a bit more open to women, it isn’t a surprise that a female power-player appears among the front-runners in US politics. Won’t be the last time, either. People want to understand her as a function of her pelvic plumbing and the images they have in their mind about “how women are”. Check out her determination to take the reins, it’s much more informative about who she is. Don’t be misled by the fact that she’s a girl, it’s secondary.

  Then all you have to do is decide whether her vision for the future is harmonious with yours.

  Posted by Kuya on Apr 26, 2007 at 8:03 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 165 posts.

Also featured Duck and Cover
Defining Hate in the United States
The Fraudulence of Voter Fraud

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Susan J. Douglas

• The Teachers Are All Right
  My brother is a high school teacher. He is not famous, and certainly not rich. After he leaves this… morePosted on August 26, 2010
• The End of Men, or the End of Reason?
  Want to sell a lot of magazines and generate a lot of buzz? Take a story about society's ongoing… morePosted on July 20, 2010
• This Summer’s Crop of Media Myths
  As we slog through what promises to be an awful summer--if BP, Israel and Wall Street lobbyists have anything… morePosted on June 14, 2010
• Can We Escape Our History?
  Approaching the University of Michigan's football stadium for this year's graduation ceremony, I had to work my way through… morePosted on May 25, 2010
• The Unanswered Question
  Helen Thomas' pointed, and deceptively courageous question, "Why do they want to do us harm?" obviously begs the bigger… morePosted on March 30, 2010