Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » FEMINISTS FOR/NOT FOR HILLARY
  • FEMINISTS FOR/NOT FOR HILLARY

    Filed at 7:26 am under by dcobranchi

    An interesting piece on Hillary Clinton’s alma mater. The young ladies at Wellesley are undoubtedly feminists. But they’re debating among themselves whether they should support Hillary simply because of her gender.

    It’s an interesting question. As the father of two daughters growing up in the Bible Belt, I’ve been thinking along those same lines, myself. The dominant culture around here is strictly paternalistic. The Southern Baptist Convention will not ordain women nor will it allow women to teach adult males in Sunday School. Telling my girls that they can be anything they want to be when they grow up feels like a bit of a lie. Our society has not been willing to allow women their seat at the table.

    No more.

    20 Responses to “FEMINISTS FOR/NOT FOR HILLARY”


    Comment by
    Jan
    January 11th, 2008
    at 9:17 am

    THANK YOU1111


    Comment by
    Divers and Sundry
    January 11th, 2008
    at 9:50 am

    Most people don’t seem to realize the entrenched paternalism that pervades our culture. But your daughters can be preachers in the United Methodist Church if they want to and teach any Sunday School class they like. I’m not voting for Clinton, but it’s not because she’s a woman. Bush has made me tired of dynastic succession. 😉


    Comment by
    Heather
    January 11th, 2008
    at 9:59 am

    I too have had this mental debate with myself over Hillary. I understand the desire to vote for a woman just to HAVE a woman in office. What a huge step that would be. But.. why HER?? And what if she loses? Will it be another generation before a woman even tries to run?


    Comment by
    NJRoadie
    January 11th, 2008
    at 12:19 pm

    Ever since the day my daughter flipped over her “placemat of the presidents” looking for the side with all the women presidents on it, I have longed for a female president. I am not crazy about Hillary, but if it comes down to a choice between her and yet another white republican male…..


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    January 11th, 2008
    at 12:33 pm

    I am not crazy about Hillary, but if it comes down to a choice between her and yet another white republican male…..

    That’s not the proper frame. We need to ask when it comes down to choosing between an African-American male, and white Southern male, and Hillary, how do you vote?

    Voting for the clowns on the other side of the aisle shouldn’t EVER be a consideration. 🙂


    Comment by
    COD
    January 11th, 2008
    at 1:55 pm

    But how will she govern? I suspect most women that vote for Hilliary just because she is a women will be quite disappointed in her actions. She is an entrenched politician with a long list of special interests to serve, and she is probably the most hawkish of the Dem candidates.


    Comment by
    sam
    January 11th, 2008
    at 2:09 pm

    I want to vote for Hillary just because she’s a woman, and I want to vote Obama just because he’s black. I do wish that either of them were a candidate I could fully support, but as it is one of them will get my vote because I don’t have any good options. We may not get a good president this time around, but a woman or a black person will at least make me feel as if my country is progressing a little bit, maybe.


    Comment by
    Toni
    January 11th, 2008
    at 2:45 pm

    “Telling my girls that they can be anything they want to be when they grow up feels like a bit of a lie. Our society has not been willing to allow women their seat at the table.”

    Well, the day a woman becomes Pope (lol) I’ll really believe there is progress in our currently testosterone-governed society… with all those glass ceilings and roadblocks.

    I will vote my conscience on issues, not based on what is below a candidate’s belt or what color his/her skin is. Currently, that happens to be a black man, which I think could be very healing for this country on a lot of levels… Of course, I’d vote for Hill’ any day over just about any Republican candidate out there… if it comes to that.


    Comment by
    don
    January 11th, 2008
    at 3:17 pm

    My logic goes like this:
    1. Just about anyone on the Democratic side and a couple of the candidates on the Republican side would be an improvement over the current administration.
    2. Of those in #1, the Democrats are preferable to the Republicans.
    3. Of the Democrats; Obama, Hillary, and Edwards appeal to me the most and are the most electable.
    4. Of those 3 candidates, I can’t really decide based on issues because their plans are really not that different from each other. Where they do differ, each has pluses and minuses that pretty much balance out against each other.
    5. Given that, I prefer to vote for Obama or Hillary because I would like to see a female or black president over another white male.
    6. Between Hillary and Obama, I prefer Obama because I like him better on a personal level.

    So my decision encompasses party politics, electability, the issues, race/gender, and charisma. Is it wrong to consider any of these? Is it wrong to consider just a single one of these? I don’t think the decision should be made on just one factor or another, but rather on consideration of the interaction of all the factors that affect how a candidate will lead. After all, we’re electing a human here, and humans are complex animals living in complex societies.


    Comment by
    COD
    January 11th, 2008
    at 3:25 pm

    Don, this is not a good start to your first day of avoiding the Internet 😉


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    January 11th, 2008
    at 3:25 pm

    I never thought I’d get to this point, but as elections get evermore irrational, expensive and counterproductive — I am a now conscientious objector, and won’t participate in the usual two-party tug-of-war. There isn’t any moral side to take, in a battle to see who will make us the biggest losers.


    Comment by
    Ulrike
    January 11th, 2008
    at 4:22 pm

    The obvious solution is to vote for Oprah.


    Comment by
    NJRoadie
    January 11th, 2008
    at 4:47 pm

    Unfortunately when the primary comes to NJ I’ll be skiing in Vermont, and they don’t do absentee ballots for primaries 🙂

    I read Obama’s book (the father one) at the beach this summer and liked it very much, still have to read Hillary’s. Will be interesting to see what happens, that is for sure.


    Comment by
    Toni
    January 11th, 2008
    at 7:32 pm

    “The obvious solution is to vote for Oprah.”

    Ah, that brings to mind a wonderful editorial: ‘Church of Oprah’, a terrific read!!
    nytime...slogin


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    January 11th, 2008
    at 7:41 pm

    Thanks Toni, I was post-surgical that week and had missed this.
    Ecumenical — good word.


    Comment by
    Nance Confer
    January 11th, 2008
    at 8:36 pm

    Sigh. . . and yet this may actually be the best we can do . . .

    “We may not get a good president this time around, but a woman or a black person will at least make me feel as if my country is progressing a little bit, maybe.”

    Nance


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    January 12th, 2008
    at 10:57 am

    Feminist values aren’t any easier to define than homeschooling values. Church, school, socialism, even sports — the Whole Game is at stake in every power play that treats individuals as interchangeable parts for the greater good.

    Like HSLDA and NHEN, say, women as one community are divided between organized big government “unionized” feminism and the rest of us diverse, individual free-thinkers and self-determiners, just trying to keep all the balls in play, and prevent any one power play from making losers of us all.

    There’s no reason to think we get a feminist president by voting for the genetic woman, and btw, didn’t a black WOMAN politico (Donna Brazile) define the Other Clinton as the first black president back in the last century, despite his pasty white face? — plus Hillary claims to have already been the first woman president while being the first equal co-president, so what advancement of the diversity ball is left to accomplish, if the Clintons already did it all?

    Of course we’re not supposed to think clearly about the fact that she’s constitutionally ineligible to serve as any kind of president now, if those eight Clinton years in the white house were hers too, because that would define her as our FORMER female president. This gripes me every time she gets going about her experience and every time simple, wrong definitions start to define our thinking. . .

    We’ve had unschooled and self-educated presidents before, love to have one to vote for now even if it isn’t some splashy “first” . . .


    Comment by
    Crimson Wife
    January 16th, 2008
    at 10:21 pm

    Margaret Thatcher was a woman, too. Would the Wellesleyites support someone like her just because she has 2 X chromosomes?

    Women can be clergy if they want since there are plenty of faiths out there happy to have them as ministers/priests/rabbis/etc. At one point, all the clergy in my hometown growing up were female except for one (the Catholic priest) as was the rabbi of the closest Reform synagogue. If a particular faith has theological reasons for restricting its clergy to men, then that should be its prerogative. We have freedom of worship in this country, and if you don’t like the doctrine of one denomination, you are welcome to find a more compatible one.


    Comment by
    Sherry
    January 18th, 2008
    at 6:27 pm

    Common misunderstanding: The SBC ha no authority over any local church affiliated with the SBC. If your local conregation (SOouthern Baptist) does not allow women to teach adult males in a Sunday School class or anywhere, the congregation made that decision, not the SBC.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    January 18th, 2008
    at 6:31 pm

    And if they ordain women the convention kicks the church out. Yes. It happens.