|
TOO MUCH WOMAN OR TOO LITTLE?
Painted into a corner
Clinton's wealth of experience does not speak to younger women
By Laura Hodes
January 27, 2008
One of the more intriguing aspects of Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is that she does better among women over 45 than among women under 45.
Why? Because older women have lived long enough to have suffered sex discrimination, while younger women can still idealistically believe they live in a postfeminist world where gender won't affect them.
Young women think feminism doesn't matter. And older women know better.
The challenge for Clinton as the nation heads toward the Feb. 5 primaries will be to find a way to resonate with young women, because they own the votes that she and Barack Obama will fight over.
Clinton holds the more difficult position, a point made clear during the heated run-up to Saturday's South Carolina primary.
In crafting her image, Clinton has been constrained by gender expectations in a way that Obama has not been confined by his race. More than that: Obama has been able to capitalize on his race, and has even been applauded for seeming to rise above the issue of race. In contrast, Clinton is derided for any references she makes to her sex.
Obama could proclaim in his Iowa speech, "They thought this day would never come." He frequently and passionately invokes Martin Luther King Jr. -- to great benefit. He refers to his candidacy as "historic" without even having to mention race directly.
When Oprah Winfrey introduced Obama before thousands of mostly African-Americans in South Carolina, race was the subtext. Obama aligned himself with Winfrey, saying their appearance on the stage was "improbable." Why? Because of their race, of course.
But as the first truly viable female presidential candidate, Clinton has had to invent a new playbook. She is struggling to present herself as a female leader who will appeal to other women but somehow not let her sex define her.
Before the New Hampshire primaries, Clinton was so busy focusing on appearing strong and powerful -- that is, not constrained by her sex -- that she came across as cold and calculating.
When she tried to defend herself, using the same words and tone a man would, she was called angry. When she directly mentioned the historic nature of her run for the presidency, she was accused of being divisive.
Nearly every effort Clinton has made to galvanize young women by directly mentioning gender has backfired.
"In so many ways, this all-women's college prepared me to compete in the all-boys' club of presidential politics," Clinton said in a November speech at her alma mater, Wellesley College. "So let's roll up our sleeves and get to work together. We're ready to shatter that highest glass ceiling."
The same day, Clinton released a YouTube video called "The Politics of Pile On," showing clips of the male Democratic candidates attacking her.
So what did the pundits do? They pounced on Clinton for "raising the gender card."
That dust-up cost Clinton an early opportunity to inject some much-needed passion, some "soul" into her campaign.
"This whole Obama lovefest has been about, 'Oh, dear God, America might be allowed to elect a black man!' And yet she is not allowed to use that emotional appeal to her favor," said Kathleen Dolan, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin.
"She represents the most underrepresented demographic group in the United States," Dolan said. "But when she says that, she is criticized."
Women journalists have been among Clinton's harshest critics. (Aren't we often each other's worst foes?)
Maureen Dowd of The New York Times derided Clinton's complaint of the men ganging up on her, as the "Don't hit me, I'm a girl" strategy. The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus deplored the "anti-feminist subtext" of her campaign.
In fact, Clinton's early approach was all wrong. It rang too much like "second-wave feminism." It was too strident, too much carrying on about how men are sexist, too serious, too lacking in humor and warmth to appeal to successful, college-educated women.
The day after Clinton's attempt to trumpet the historic nature of her candidacy, NBC's Matt Lauer in an interview with Obama said, "Now it sounds to me, senator, as if I just heard the gender card drop."
Obama agreed, responding that when he was asked about foreign policy issues at a recent debate, "I didn't come out and say, 'Look, I'm being hit on because I look different from the rest of the folks on the stage.'"
Ever since, Clinton has shied away from mentioning her sex. She does not focus on issues important to women, talking little about abortion rights, equal pay, child care, parental leave.
Considering that more women vote in primaries than men, the obvious explanation for this strategy is that Clinton fears that the pundits would again excoriate her for playing the gender card.
Clinton's much-discussed almost-tears, her moment of frankness, allowed women to feel a kinship with her. It allowed Clinton to refer to her status as a woman in that same indirect way that Obama alludes to his race.
Women saw Clinton tear up and show some heart, and they started to look differently at her. There, they thought, is a woman who suffers just as I do because she is a woman. I identify with her.
People want Clinton to show more emotion. That's her new winning strategy. But it's only certain emotions, traditionally feminine, soft ones, the smiles and tears, that people embrace. Men can use anger to great advantage in politics and business. But it is deplored when seen in powerful women.
Clinton has not won over women under 30, who are saying they would rather wait for a different female presidential candidate.
But younger women, particularly college students, have faced little sex discrimination; they're still in the bubble of school, which actually favors girls and their style of learning.
They have the luxury of thinking they are "postfeminist" because they have yet to start families, where the division of labor is still shaped by gender. They have yet to enter the workplace, yet to encounter unequal pay, yet to go up against a glass ceiling.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(685 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
