What Women WantEmily Bazelon and Melinda Henneberger discuss Slate's XX Factor and the female perspective on politics.
Posted Thursday, Nov. 15, 2007, at 1:57 PM ETSlate "XX Factor" bloggers Emily Bazelon and Melinda Henneberger were online at Washingtonpost.com on Thursday, Nov. 15, to take readers' questions about women and politics. An unedited transcript of the chat follows.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponChicago: I am a 41-year-old single woman. Apparently, from what I read, this category of voters will determine the '08 election. What do I, as a woman, need out of a presidential candidate? Pretty much the same things I'd want if I were a man, I'm guessing. First and foremost, someone who will flip 180 degrees from George W. Bush and respect and obey the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Someone who understands that Congress is a legitimate branch of government. Someone who won't ignore laws Congress just passed by sneaking on a signing statement in the dark of night. Someone who understands that waterboarding (and lots of other stuff) is torture and we MUST abide by the Geneva Conventions. Someone who will unpoliticize the Justice Department. These things are so much more important to me than health care, Social Security, even the war. This is going to sound really corny, but I want America back. I want to be proud to say "I'm an American." I'm not right now.
Emily Bazelon: You are touching on the major issues, for sure, and you also sound like you're someone who is not going to vote for Hillary because she's a woman, or for a male candidate who tries to reach out to women specially. I also find myself curiously unmoved by Hillary's candidacy as a first-ever for women—I mean, of course it would be amazing if she was elected. But I'm not going to vote for her because of that. I'm not even really tempted.
_______________________
Washington: What is your take on how Clinton has been pummeled in the press after her blunder in the last debate? I watched the debate and felt that she didn't perform any differently than she has in the past—nor did her competitors. In other words, I felt it was a draw and, therefore, she won. It has since seemed to me that the press wanted something to talk about because her supposed inevitability was getting boring. Thus, the constant punditry about how she's slipping.
A friend recently said that "they" (the male establishment) saw her getting too close and have finally decided it's time to take her out. Thoughts?
For the record, I'm still undecided, but I am a Democrat and I would sell my kidneys for the chance to get my country back on track and out of the hands of the Republicans.
Melinda Henneberger: Both of Senator Clinton's closest rivals have become more aggressive lately, and Obama in particular has waited until fairly late in the game to take her on in a more direct way. As she has said, that's not because she's a woman; it's because she's ahead. In fact, I don't think they would have waited so long if she had been a man, because they do not want to risk looking ungentlemanly!
Emily Bazelon: Now, I think, they've concluded they have to take her on. Which is esp tricky for Obama, since he is supposed to be the New Way to Peace candidate.
_______________________
Richmond, Va.: Is there any chance that if Hillary doesn't win the presidency, the media WON'T come to the conclusion that it was because "America wasn't prepared to elect a female president?" I mean, there could be other reasons why we wouldn't vote for her, right?
Emily Bazelon: Yes, lots of other reasons. And you're right, that explanation could get awfully tedious awfully fast. It depends somewhat on how events unfold on the campaign trail, but for now at least Hillary's gender is only helping her, if it accounts for her huge lead over the other Democrats among women.
Melinda Henneberger: I guess that's what I object to about the current assumption that those who oppose Hillary Clinton must be doing so because she's a woman; of course mysoceny is alive and well, but it does not account for the negative response of many left-leaning, women-appreciating voters. But to answer your question, no, there is no chance that we will come to any other conclusion; if she loses, we will all know that it was on account of her gender.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: I am not remotely tempted to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. I am voting for Hillary because she's smart and shares my democratic values and because I think she will surround herself with the best and brightest the party has to offer when she's elected!
Emily Bazelon: Democracy at work!
_______________________
Troy, N.Y.: What do you think of Anne Coulter's assertion that women who cannot get husbands want the government to be their husband and take care of them? Additionally she advocates ending women's suffrage.
Emily Bazelon: I don't think much of Ann Coulter's assertions about just about everything. Questions of individual responsibility v. the role of government are a lot more complex than that, aren't they?
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.: It would be interesting if your question, "What do women need out of a political candidate?" was changed to "What does a woman candidate need out of women?" Hillary Clinton needs support from other women. When I have voiced my support for Hillary while collecting petition signatures to get her name on the February primary ballot in Virginia, I have received, among others, the following reactions: "I'll support a woman for president, but not her," "No!" and "I don't know who HE is."
Emily Bazelon: Hmm. Your experience touches on one of Hillary's big problems: People seem to not like her, intensely, for all kinds of reasons. Melinda and I disagree about why. I think the Hillary hating is often gender related. My evidence is that often the reasons people give me for not liking Hillary—she screwed up health care as First Lady, she's a phony triangulator—seem to me reasons for disliking Bill with equal fervor. And yet these same people like Bill. Which makes me wonder. But hey Melinda, weigh in here about why I'm wrong.
Melinda Henneberger: Wrong is such an unfriendly word. Of course some people would find a reason to hate any female candidate—and oh, that scary woman who called Clinton the B word at a John McCain event the other day was one of them; she was aglow with rage. My dissent that this is THE reason mainly comes from the many women I talked to for my book who just seemed so sorry not to like her better, for reasons that genuinely seemed to have nothing to do with gender.
_______________________
Chicago: I just want to make a couple comments on whether Hillary is playing "the gender card." I noticed Jake Tapper did a segment on this on "Nightline" last night. Just because Hillary made a speech at a women's only college, Wellesley, after the debate doesn't mean she's playing the gender card. Duh, she is going to make speeches at her alma mater. Just because she accused the other candidates of "piling on" doesn't mean she's playing the gender card. (Is "piling on" supposed to have some kind of gendered, or sexual connotation I'm unaware of?) The other candidates, and Tim Russert, DID pile on Hillary Clinton in the debate. There is no question about it. I don't think they did it because she's a woman, but because she is the front runner. And pundits like Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd make everything about gender, because they're obsessed with it and can't get beyond their bizarre 1960s Catholic mindsets. Matthews and Dowd loathe Hillary Clinton and will do whatever it takes to bring her down.
Obama's Small Masterpiece of a Speech at Fort Hood
Can Death Row Convicts Have Whatever They Want for Their Last Meal?
Does Rupert Murdoch Really Hate Google?
The Crops That Are Secretly Terrible for the Planet
The Three Kinds of Liberals Who Could Bring Down the Health Care Bill
Short Sayings That Make Me Happy
Remarks from the Fray:
As some astute Frayster has already pointed out (I believe in response to the XX Factor), it's not entirely fair to say that people's dislike of Hillary has nothing to do with gender, because the qualitities they tend to point to as evidence of her poor character or unlikable personality are often completely excused in men. Sure, Hillary is a calculating, triangulating politician who tends to say what the voters want to hear and gloss over unpleasant truths. Sure, she puts a lot of effort into crafting a particular public image that is probably not a perfect representation of who she "really" is. But are these really reasons not to vote for her, when they are qualities she shares with most successful politicians, including her husband?
For whatever reason, people see these qualities as less acceptable in women, and that's where the sexism comes in. If you really don't want that kind of a politician to be president, that's fine, laudable even, but don't vote for some man who shares Hillary's slipperiness, lack of candor, tendency to pander, etc., and pretend he's somehow less of a "bitch" just because he's a man.
--melisma
(To reply, click here.)
The right wing rage of the "scary lady" is not gender based, it is right wing raged based. I have seen equal red faced right wing rage about Teddy Kennedy (liberal!), illegal immigrants (illegal!), Sean Penn (bad actor!), faceless bureaucrats (socialists!), Michael Moore (fat!), and lazy union workers (lazy!).
Same rage; different target. It's the rage du jour.
The right wing rage is bigoted when bigotry serves, misogynist when misogyny serves, racist when racism serves, fundamentalist when...
Accusing a raging right wing WOMAN as having gender rage, is well, interesting. Isn't it?
--Sarvis
(To reply, click here.)
(11/18)