HOME / the chat room: Real-time discussions with Slate writers.

What Women WantEmily Bazelon and Melinda Henneberger discuss Slate's XX Factor and the female perspective on politics.

Slate "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.

(Continued from page 3)

Hillary as the "first woman President": Ladies: As a man, it may be dangerous to say this, but I think Hillary has lost much of her ability to leverage her opportunity to be the first woman president. By claiming she already has experience in the White House from helping Bill do the job, the only obvious conclusion is the same thing will happen if she wins: we get another co-Presidency. How does that make her a strong, independent woman ready to claim a role only held before by men?

Emily Bazelon: This is the legacy question, I think. I agree that it complicates Hillary's candidacy. They are a package deal, to some inevitable degree. To some voters, that's a strength: This is the closest they can get to voting for Bill a third time. For others, it's anathema, because the whole Team Clinton thing certainly had its flaws.

I don't really think this issue detracts from Hillary's would-be status as the first women president. President is a v. different title from First Lady, or perhaps I should say First Spouse. But I do think that the psychodrama that the Clintons put the country through, and the possibility of a return to all of that, has a dynamic all its own.

_______________________

Vancouver, B.C.: There's a pretty big spread between the number of men and the number of women supporting Hillary in national polls.

I've read people around the Web saying that women are only voting for Hillary because she's a woman, but there was a study reported in Slate last week that found a strong gender effect in coffee shop service.

The study demonstrated that women wait an average of 20 seconds longer for their drinks than men do when men are serving them, but there was no difference observed when women were serving.

The researchers concluded that the reason for the difference in service is that men generally feel some contempt for women. I'd interpret it as more of a demonstration of hierarchy.

If a difference in coffee shop service is only observed when men are serving women, and not when women are serving women or men, doesn't it lend credence to the argument that it's not that women are more inclined to vote for Hillary because she's a woman, it's that men are inclined NOT to vote for her because she's a woman?

Why aren't we hearing more about this?

Emily Bazelon: One reason we're not hearing more about the idea that men won't vote for Hillary is that her numbers with Democratic men aren't bad compared to the other candidates. That is to say, Hillary has a huge lead among Democratic women—30 points over Obama the last time I checked—but she's not way behind Obama and Edwards in the male vote. Those figures may change among general election voters, ie when the Republicans and Independents get added in. And if it does, then the issue you raise becomes v. salient and interesting.

_______________________

Pittsburgh: First we had "soccer moms," then after 9/11 it was "security moms." What descriptor (category) for moms do you foresee being most influential in the 2008 election?

Melinda Henneberger: If there were any "security moms,'' they disappeared into a well-stocked bunker somewhere within minutes of the 2004 election; it was catchy, but not the reason Democratic defectors went for Bush. The hip supposed swing group now is single women. But the truth is that the group that matters this time is the same as always: people who show up at the polls on election day.

_______________________

Emily Bazelon: Thanks, everyone. It was great to chat. These issues will be with us until next November, and I appreciate the opportunity to puzzle through them with all of you.

All best,

Emily

_______________________

Melinda Henneberger: Thanks, Emily and all of you who wrote in, Melinda

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
Emily Bazelon edits Slate's "Medical Examiner" and "Jurisprudence" columns and writes about law and family. Melinda Henneberger writes columns for Commonweal, the Catholic opinion journal.
COMMENTS

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)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
All that glitters …93/091202_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on Afghanistan.55/091202_TC.jpg
Handling the old dude.66/0912102_TD.jpg