Doesn’t anyone else find it ironic that it’s both the first time that a woman and a black man have a chance for office, but for either of them to accomplish such an historical human triumph, they have to fight amongst themselves to achieve a spot to contend with yet another old which guy?
This, although funny, is asked in all seriousness. In thinking of it over the past few weeks, the ‘New Holy Trinity’ of Race, Class and Gender, I’ve been questioning Clinton’s legitimacy in particular. Legitimacy, not as in dishonesty or deception, but in the commitment to what she as a female running to be the President of the United States of America means to her own social and historical context.
Clinton consistently sticks to the argument that, to paraphrase, a person ought to be judged on their own accord, their individual histories and triumphs and downfalls. However, there is a certain social context that seems to be lacking in this position. Is Hilary Clinton a woman at all?
If we mean physically, biologically, then yes, she is a woman running to be the next president. Nonetheless, I can’t help but feel that there is more of a weighty issue at hand here than this physical fact. Why is it important that we have a woman president, or women as representatives in government at all? Have we been upset with the basic notion that a person without ovaries has never been in office?
My own concern has been that the representation of women, and all of those contextual social aspects that are attached to woman-ness, are not being upheld or voiced adequately. It can’t just be the physical logical fact in time and space that we have been lacking vagina-people, and we have too many penis-people.
What does it mean to be a woman? For one, I have no fucking idea. But I know that men, and the existing system which is largely, if not entirely, male represent a host of issues that are counter productive and misguided in benefiting human beings as a whole. Notions of materialism, rampant individualism and isolation, ideas of power struggle, of pride, self-interest, these are all ideas that have born the horrific things done to the western world, and the developing world’s population.
I am not claiming to be an authority on Feminism, but in terms of judging character, how can women look up to someone whose views are essentially aligned with those of an old white man, with longer hair? This is not meant to be derogatory or sexist, but instead to make a tremendously important point that Hilary Clinton is the epitome of what is wrong with how we, as a society, view Feminism. It makes it evident that these gender problems remain prominent. Clinton is an example of how it’s so easy for anyone to fall in to the chasm of power struggle, materialism and greed, to be essentially tricked to play the same game of oppression.
Her policy is fine, her intentions are good and she would make a fine president I think, perhaps one of the best. That notwithstanding, to say that her views represent a ‘feminine’ view is to be misguided. These may be good-male views, but to me, Barack Obama is more of a woman than Clinton could ever be.
Please keep in mind this is being written by a middle-class, first world, white Canadian dude.
I find this discussion really quite intriguing, especially because I have devoted a LOT of my time over the last six-months-to-a-year following the election and (much to your deight), I don’t entirely agree with the above notion.
While Hillary doesn’t have to say “I AM A WOMAN” for people to associate with women or for women to be inspired to vote for her simply on the fact that she has a uterus, the only people who have REALLY cared about the fact that Clinton is a woman or Obama is Mulato are the media. When they speak, they never talk about the plight of women or of African Americans, they talk about the plight of Americans, period. If they were both white males, I’m sure that they would stand for exactly the same things and deliver exactly the same speeches, yes they can.
This isn’t to say that the role of president hasn’t been hyper-masculinized, because it has. But I think that the real question behind the presidency is this: “Are the presidential qualities or attributes what they are because vocal and present males have always held the position? Or rather; Does the position of ‘president’ have innate qualities that are built into its mandate, and those qualities are often held by Westernize(and often White) males?”
I think that it’s the latter, because again, Hillary never totes that she’s a woman and Barack never totes that he’s Mulato. I think, at the very least, Clinton has been fighting for legitimacy and equality - which, to my understanding, is a core foundation of feminism: Not to be superior, but to be treatd as equals.
I think you stated it really well with this paragraph: “Clinton consistently sticks to the argument that, to paraphrase, a person ought to be judged on their own accord, their individual histories and triumphs and downfalls. However, there is a certain social context that seems to be lacking in this position.”
A person ought to be judged by their own accord; individual histories, triumphs and downfalls - not their vagina. Again, the only people who are REALLY playing up the gender and race cards are CNN and Fox. As a result, the rest of society (not just the US, clearly) thinks this is a really big deal, but really… I think it’s just two ass-kicking candidates who agree on pretty much everything (save the logistics of a universal health care plan and whether experience is more important than future visions) who just want to restore the US to its former global reputation (pre-1999).
Also, I don’t really agree that with your third-to-last paragraph about Clinton’s attitudes are aligned with those of an older white-haired man - you’re comparing Beethoven to Fi’tty Cent, or Van Gogh to the dude who draws “Calvin and Hobbes.” I think that Clinton is duelling in the arena of American politics - she’s aligned herself with a party (one of the two oldest political parties in the world) according to her own personal beliefs and is fighting for a natural equality of Americans and the restoration of the middle-class - I don’t see anything masculine or feminine about that at all and I think that you may be over-complicating the gender issue here.
“My own concern has been that the representation of women, and all of those contextual social aspects that are attached to woman-ness, are not being upheld or voiced adequately. It can’t just be the physical logical fact in time and space that we have been lacking vagina-people, and we have too many penis-people.”
This paragraph has been CNN-ized or Fox-ized - I honestly don’t think that she gives an f-sharp about vagina-people, at least any more than she cares about penis-people; in fact, I think who she’s really concerned about is Latino-people because she if she doesn’t get the majority of them in the Texas caucus (which happens on your birthday, in fact! :)), she’s out of the running. I don’t think that her “social aspects are attached to woman-ness” - I don’t even think that she believes that, but that’s simply been jammed in her mouth because, as you’ve said earlier, she’s a vagina-person. The wife of Senator John Edwards (the last candidate to concede) said that John Edwards had more plans to help women than Hillary’s did, and I don’t even think she responded to that because I don’t think it’s ever been as much about Hillary specifically helping women, it’s comparable to Barack’s platform specificaly helping African Americans.
“Clinton is an example of how it’s so easy for anyone to fall in to the chasm of power struggle, materialism and greed, to be essentially tricked to play the same game of oppression.” This “chasm” or “game” is the arena of politics, my good friend, and thus far, it’s been a pretty fair fight with the last two debates providing ample proof of that. I don’t believe that this is a struggle for power, but rather a struggle to achieve means of change, even if that results in running for a position of power. She holds many attributes that would make her a fine president: She understands the political system, she has conviction for true change, she understands the issues and has prepared plans that are both economically as well as practically sound, she’s a fine orator, she has decades of experience in US politics… she’d be wonderful.
However, with that said, I do believe that the one divisive point is still the core difference between them: Clinton believes that her experience proves that she is the best candidate, while Obama believes that his ideas of hope, change and forward momentum should grant him the office. In short; one looks back while the other looks forward.
“We’ve been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.” - Barack Obama, New Hampshire Primary Speech, January 8, 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/us/politics/08text-obama.html?pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1203380534-zToO0Fl8GENieJESa SAIg
As much I argue for Hillary, by chip is still in Obama’s corner. While Clinton would be a fantastic president, I want Obama to win it :)
(finally, I can talk about politics! I’m the only one who’s following the US election, so it’s been boiling inside…!)
(sorry it’s so long! I had a lot to say)
i think you make some really great points kenley, they’re really helpful and i think it’s a good take on the situation.
let’s just be clear about what we’re talking about. is it not important that Clinton is a woman running for office? regardless of what she says or doesn’t say about it, isn’t it the case that it IS important? if it’s important, then WHY is it important?
i think you’d agree that we ought to have women representing us in the political realm, along with people of other backgrounds, etc. then you must admit that there is something to these kinds of social and political contexts of ‘woman’, ‘man’, ‘black’, ‘white’, etc. not necessarily essential, but that there is something important about their social upbringing and the resulting perspective.
that’s the entire point though, that Hilary Clinton is not really a woman representative, and does nothing in the way of applying a feminine voice (whatever that means). She is a vagina-person, but she’s not really showing the interests of women. i as well think that would be a great president, but it’s the point. the point is that she’s a long-haired man.
when we talk about equality, and not being judged on anything but an individual character, what that’s really saying, in a sense, is that we ought to be equally judged on a white-male standard, because the white-male perspective is what we’ve been living with and what the entire system is based off of.
i’m not saying that men can’t represent women’s issues, or that white people can’t do good things for black people, all i mean to say is that there is a certain social context that people who are not white males can bring to the table, and it can’t be by in many ways denying that context.
the standard itself is what needs changing, not its face or genitals.
I think the fact that Clinton is a women means a lot to women. Whether or not she is representing the interest of women is immaterial, it is what she is. If she does make it to president, then she will have broken down another barrier reserved until 2009 for rich white old men.
However, go Green!
And… I think the use of mulato is quite offensive. Mixed race or heritage is much better..
That is a really good point - sometimes I forget what I’m ranting about… such is the nature of ranting :P
You’re right, it is a big deal that Hillary Clinton (as a woman) is running for president; it shouldn’t be, but it is. Which I suppose is exactly what you’re getting at: Why is it important that a woman is running for president?
I also agree with you here:
“I think you’d agree that we ought to have women representing us in the political realm, along with people of other backgrounds, etc. then you must admit that there is something to these kinds of social and political contexts of ‘woman’, ‘man’, ‘black’, ‘white’, etc. not necessarily essential, but that there is something important about their social upbringing and the resulting perspective.”
…”woman”, “man”, “black”, “white”… it could be society’s intrinsic need to label everything - “Web 2.0″, “anime music” (some OCR dudes disagreed with that statement), “power pop”, “pop”, “pop punk”, “emo”… et cetera.
But that’s a double-edged sword in itself because it reciprocally asks the question “why don’t we label ‘white male?’ - which I now see is the basis for your argument. It’s not necessarily “why is it important that people think a woman is running for president?” It’s more “why does society and ideology believe that it’s important that someone other than a white male is running for president” (let’s just loop Obama in there too).
I further ask this question too - why [was] it important that a Mormon was running for president?” I mean, Mitt Romney is a white male, incredibly coherent in economics and politics… did he concede because he was a poor candidate? Because he’s Mormon? Or rather; because he’s not run-of-the-mill Christian? As far as I know, Mormonism is a sect of Christianity…
Okay, I’m going to leave that up to you. I just went for a 90-minute walk, then I emailed Amber Mac, because she talked about Winnipeg, “Video Games Live” and modern art in the same Episode of Net@Night… so I had to tell her about ITS… we’ll see if she responds…
ps: San - sorry, I didn’t realize that Mulato has offensive; in my ignorance, I just didn’t know. I will use ‘mixed race’ or ‘mixed heritage’ instead. Thanks!
@Kenley, thanks I appreciate it.
I think White Male is the norm. So a deviation from the norm is labelled. Women across the board in all (well almost all) societies are discriminated against and so it is a big deal that Clinton is in a position to challenge for president. Obama is in the same boat.
Mormons are in fact not a sect of Christianity, they are way off on their own… much like the Scientologists, so for the Republican Party which prides itself on its’ conservative Christian values, this was a real challenge. That’s why it was significant, if not important.
It surprises me that Mormonism is not a sect of Christianity, because I’m pretty sure that it still revolves around Jesus, scriptures and God… I might double-check that, San… :)
@San and @Kenley
Thanks for the comments guys, they’re really helpful and interesting in terms of developing this. it’s really dense, and i think exploring it this way really opens it up a bit for me. thanks for your continuing interest :)
i think that the entire notion of these ‘labels’ is difficult and trivial at best. even though there is more diversity in terms of the ‘kinds’ of human beings in our government offices, there doesn’t seem to be a diversity of ideology.
being a woman, i think, has more to do with your moral convictions and your interests, and not so much about your hair, or your genitals. i only say ‘white-male’ because those are the people who are historically holding the positions in the social structures that purport the system. it’s not exactly meant to racialize, or sexify (heh… sexify) the issue, it just so happens we’re calling the system of economic materialism and capitalistic greed ‘male’, because it has been.
Aaron - I suppose that a part of me agrees, but how come a male can’t have the same moral conviction and interests as a female? I think that that’s where my train is de-railing. I mean, Brenna and I have watched both “Restaurant Makeover” and “Battlestar Galactica…” While these are both stereotypes, these stereotypes come from somewhere… this seems more like a convergence in ideology, rather than a DIversity.
Brenna and I have recently had this conversation with regards to women getting university degrees, then becoming stay-at-home mums. While there is nothing wrong with being a stay-at-home mum, why go through a university degree if you aren’t going to use it?
For the record, I am playing “devil’s advocate” and either sex can do whatever they want. Stay-at-home-mum’s usually aren’t just ‘mums’ and often take this time to explore other interests. See, now that sounds like something that I would love to do: Spend time with my children and read, grow, write, be artistic…
I know that there really isn’t a whole lot of time to be artistic when the kidlets are little, but you know what I mean.
And now I’m getting off-track, this is a hard topic to stay focussed on :P Your last sentence makes a lot of sense, though: “we’re calling the system of economic materialism and capitalistic greed ‘male’, because it has been.” I think that that’s absolutely true. As much as we talk about diversity and gender policies, the top floor of Investor’s Group or the highest tier of the US Senate is still a boy’s club.
One question that Brenna had was whether or not when are disposed to a position of passivity as a result of men struggling for power or control. Is their disposition a result of being dealt a “second hand?” I’m not saying that that’s necessarily fair (and I’m sure that she is much more eloquent than this and has a better idea of what it is she’s trying to say).
Anyways, Brenna is brilliant, you guys should talk about this :) She’s so smart :)
(yes, I like how this ends :P)
@Kenley Islam involves Jesus too, but you couldn’t call it a sect of Christianity… Wikipedia has an interesting article about their ‘unusual’ beginnings…
Of course labels are trivial. But they exist. And the difference between men and women is there. I look at the little kids at my son’s daycare everyday and there is something there. It’s not learned as far as I can tell, it’s just there…
Hell, if I see a New Zealander making it big in another country, I think that’s pretty cool. We are minorities in this world too…
Okay, this could be spawning a whole other topic here and I’m pretty sure that Islam does not involve Jesus. Speaking of Jesus and Mormonism - or rather, religion in general, I think that all of them have “unusual” beginnings if you look at them with a critical eye. Some are just commonly accepted in our culture and therefore, are less “unusual”… which is very crazy to me.
That came out way wrong - I guess I’m saying that it’s unfair to call one religion’s origin as “unusual” when other (or maybe more common religions) follow a similar path… that’s what I’m saying. I mean, obviously no religion is ground in physical or scientific happenings because a lot of religions are based in the supernatural - it can’t happen in the scientific world and that’s why it’s called “faith.”
Sorry, that last comment was quite rude of me!
@San though it might be controvertial, I think that mormonism is a sector of protestantism, which is the split from Catholocism. it’s pretty ‘out there’ in terms of its differnce to other christian strings, but I think it still is defined as christianity. that said, there’s a differnce between mormon branches as well, LDS (later day saints) and the polygamist kinds, etc. it might be different, but it’s legitimate.
@kenley Jesus is one of many prohphets in the range of prophets found in Islam, he’s just not THE prophet, or THE saviour, he is one of them. (along with Mohammad, etc.)
anyway, all of that is beside the point. again, I think we’re pigeon-holing and getting bogged down with concise differences, that don’t REALLY make a difference in terms of the overall subject at hand. the subject, being that there are differences between those physical groupings of people are not of their race/class/gender, but instead their ideology, and their legitimate interests.
@kenley and brenna, in terms of women ’staying-home’ with uni degrees, it’s the same reason we graduate highschool even if we’re going to be fisherman in gimli. I also think that ’staying-home’ is an extremely important and complex thing to do, and that we ought to be working on a system that encourages those kinds of proper child-care values. I really feel that there has to be some kind of movement in terms of public policy on this…
jeannine’s mom, for example, could have been anything she wanted to be, I think, and chose to ’stay-home’. she’s smart, and funny, but in terms of the dynamic in their household, it was a mutual decision between the parents for her to stay at home and raise their kids and work the household. the social and educational implications were extremely important to them. I think you and I are lucky to have been brought up in a system of private child-care that just happened to be extremely nurturing. I don’t think that those kinds of things are very typical.
but this is really a whole other post…. sorry :P
I just think it’s important to keep in mind that every mother is a working mother. (not to say you were, but just to keep in mind the overall scheme of how important it is.)
in terms of the last question, i’m a bit unsure about… the dynamic between the kind of ‘passive’ and ‘aggressive’ -ness is a development of centuries of assumed ideals, and assumed roles and practices that each gender could do. Engels has a lot to say about this in ‘Origins of the Family, Private Property and the Sate’ and I tend to be swayed by the socialist feminist movement in general. in light of these kinds of modern social developments, I think that the old system of ‘roles’ doesn’t really stand anymore… but I think i’m really misunderstanding the question…
Yup, Jesus is a prophet in Islam… nice one Aaron :)
Kenley, re. religion you are 100% correct. I guess the difference is that the founding of LDS happened in recent times. Most established religions came about a long time ago and at least have some history to obscure the ’strangeness’. The whole finding golden plates in an Indian burial ground is just too funny for words.
As for them being an offshoot of Protestantism, I thought that too until I started reading LDS websites where they swear blind that they are not Christians.
I agree with Aaron about roles. They have changed. But society still rules that women staying home with kids is ok, but if it’s a man, then it’s weird… But I have run out of ideas now. Please post something new.