Young Feminists Split On Clinton

[William Haskins]

The two students walked on the same paths across campus here this week, past the dormitory where Hillary Rodham lived for four years, past two dozen framed portraits of groundbreaking women in Alumnae Hall, past the banners on the quad proclaiming "Wellesley: Women Who Will." But Katie Chanpong and Aubre Carreon Aguilar -- feminists and political activists -- arrived at contradictory conclusions.

"If you're a woman, you vote for Hillary because of what it means to women everywhere," said Chanpong, a sophomore.

Carreon Aguilar, a senior, said: "If I'm supposed to vote for Hillary just because I'm a woman, that's kind of sexist."

Even here at Wellesley College, Hillary Rodham Clinton's alma mater and a historic bedrock of progressive feminist thought, support for the senator from New York hardly registers as unanimous. Instead, the election has inspired a debate at this women-only liberal arts college about what it means to be a feminist. Do you vote for a woman to shatter the glass ceiling and further the cause? Or do you make an empowered, individual decision that is not confined by gender?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3699799.shtml

[cethklein]

Let's face it, I'd think any feminist who actually has convictions would find it hard to support Hillary, given the woman allowed her husband to cheat on her possibly hundreds of ties and did noting. That's subservience, which is something I'd gather feminists aren't fond of.

[MattW]

Same issue with Obama and race. Any voter who votes for Obama solely on his race is a racist.

[William Haskins]

Originally Posted by cethklein

Let's face it, I'd think any feminist who actually has convictions would find it hard to support Hillary, given the woman allowed her husband to cheat on her possibly hundreds of times and did noting. That's subservience, which is something I'd gather feminists aren't fond of.

in her defense, she did hold the video camera on multiple occasions.

[dolores haze]

Originally Posted by cethklein

Let's face it, I'd think any feminist who actually has convictions would find it hard to support Hillary, given the woman allowed her husband to cheat on her possibly hundreds of ties and did noting. That's subservience, which is something I'd gather feminists aren't fond of.

I'm a feminist with convictions. I don't really care about the Clinton's marriage, but for whatever reason Hillary has stayed with Bill, I know it's not out of subservience.

As a feminist, I don't feel obliged to vote for Clinton just because she's a woman, though I am always very encouraged when women run for high political office. I would have slit my wrists before I would have voted for Margaret Thatcher.

[robeiae]

Ha! I thought it said "SPIT on Clinton." Thought there would be some fireworks...

[William Haskins]

beats the other potential misreading of it, i reckon.

[Bravo]

Originally Posted by cethklein

Let's face it, I'd think any feminist who actually has convictions would find it hard to support Hillary, given the woman allowed her husband to cheat on her possibly hundreds of ties and did noting. That's subservience, which is something I'd gather feminists aren't fond of.

that's a really shocking and demeaning statement to women everywhere.

my understanding about feminism is that it has to do about giving women choices. hillary's personal choice regarding the affair were hers and hers alone.

[robeiae]

Originally Posted by Bravo

that's a really shocking and demeaning statement to women everywhere.

my understanding about feminism is that it has to do about giving women choices. hillary's personal choice regarding the affair were hers and hers alone.

That's a bit ahistorical. A prime component of feminist ideology was/is not allowing oneself to be used by a man or treated disrespectfully by a man as a matter of course. Women with philandering husbands that chose to just "sit there and take it" were feeding the stereotype of the docile female, thus were considered to be part of the problem.

Cethklein's statement is quite valid, imo.

[Bravo]

Originally Posted by robeiae

That's a bit ahistorical. A prime component of feminist ideology was/is not allowing oneself to be used by a man or treated disrespectfully by a man as a matter of course. Women with philandering husbands that chose to just "sit there and take it" were feeding the stereotype of the docile female, thus were considered to be part of the problem.

Cethklein's statement is quite valid, imo.

i think it's anti-feminist to sit there and make judgements on another woman's personal choices.

no one knows what was going on in the clinton family household. maybe they had an open marriage. or maybe she recognizes that he has a sex addiction and wants to help him overcome that. or maybe she wants him part of his daughter's life. or maybe she's just using him for her future presidential bid. who knows.

and who really cares, honestly?

it really isn't anyone's business or anyone's concern.

[billythrilly7th]

"Today I Am A Woman!!"
Alex P. Keaton
1/14/84

[robeiae]

Originally Posted by Bravo

i think it's anti-feminist to sit there and make judgements on another woman's personal choices.

no one knows what was going on in the clinton family household. maybe they had an open marriage. or maybe she recognizes that he has a sex addiction and wants to help him overcome that. or maybe she wants him part of his daughter's life. or maybe she's just using him for her future presidential bid. who knows.

and who really cares, honestly?

it really isn't anyone's business or anyone's concern.

I don't care.

But saying it's anti-feminist to make that judgement is simply not consistent with what adherents to the movement have espoused.

[WendyNYC]

Originally Posted by cethklein

Let's face it, I'd think any feminist who actually has convictions would find it hard to support Hillary, given the woman allowed her husband to cheat on her possibly hundreds of ties and did noting. That's subservience, which is something I'd gather feminists aren't fond of.

I'm a feminist and her personal life doesn't bother me at all. Like Bravo said, who knows what was going on in her household? I do understand that life is complicated and her marriage is none of my business.

If my husband cheated on me, would I leave? I'd like to think so, but then again, I've never been faced with that.

I'm still undecided about the election, but her personal life is not a factor.

[Bravo]

Originally Posted by robeiae

But saying it's anti-feminist to make that judgement is simply not consistent with what adherents to the movement have espoused.

you're still stuck on it's first wave, robeeee

[robeiae]

Originally Posted by Bravo

you're still stuck on it's first wave, robeeee

Not true. I just didn't fall for the last line.

[dolores haze]

Interesting article : "Hill's Angels"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...239617,00.html

[Bird of Prey]

I think people are confusing women's fight for equality with a private issue. I wonder: if Obama's wife was caught publicly with another man but he chose to stay with her - with the declared conclusion that it a personal matter - would people find it a reason to condemn him?

[cethklein]

Originally Posted by Bravo

that's a really shocking and demeaning statement to women everywhere.

my understanding about feminism is that it has to do about giving women choices. hillary's personal choice regarding the affair were hers and hers alone.

You misunderstood me. What is so shocking about women standing up and not being used? I know numerous feminists and the impression I've always gotten is that the core principle of feminism is that women are not objects. By Hillary essentially saying "it's ok" and then acting like some liberated woman is a slap in the face to women everywhere.

[William Haskins]

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

I think people are confusing women's fight for equality with a private issue. I wonder: if Obama's wife was caught publicly with another man but he chose to stay with her - with the declared conclusion that it a personal matter - would people find it a reason to condemn him?

it would depend on whether or not he was wearing a purple suit and a fedora with a big feather in it, yes?

[cethklein]

Originally Posted by dolores haze

I'm a feminist with convictions. I don't really care about the Clinton's marriage, but for whatever reason Hillary has stayed with Bill, I know it's not out of subservience.

As a feminist, I don't feel obliged to vote for Clinton just because she's a woman, though I am always very encouraged when women run for high political office. I would have slit my wrists before I would have voted for Margaret Thatcher.

See this is what I have always felt feminism was about, not feeling obligated to do ANYTHING just because someone tells you to. Hillary seems to think women should vote for her because she's a woman. To me that's no different than a man telling a woman "do this because i said so."

In other words, Hillary stands for everything feminists are against, and not just because she stayed with Bill but because of her "follow me because I'm a woman" mentality. No her personal life SHOULDN'T be a factor, it's her hypocrisy that should be though.

[William Haskins]

Originally Posted by cethklein

You misunderstood me. What is so shocking about women standing up and not being used? I know numerous feminists and the impression I've always gotten is that the core principle of feminism is that women are not objects. By Hillary essentially saying "it's ok" and then acting like some liberated woman is a slap in the face to women everywhere.

one of the big problems with "-ism"s is that they perpetuate the misguided notion that the individual's loyalty must be pledged to the group rather than themselves.

hence, a black person who works hard, speaks well, becomes educated is often ridiculed by the community for not being "black" enough, while—in fact—it is he who is furthering the empowerment of all blacks by example.

[robeiae]

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

I think people are confusing women's fight for equality with a private issue. I wonder: if Obama's wife was caught publicly with another man but he chose to stay with her - with the declared conclusion that it a personal matter - would people find it a reason to condemn him?

Probably not. In fact, he might get some sympathy for having a "cheatin' wife,"--the poor guy--that he chose to stick with so his kids could still have their mommy.

THAT is a stereotype. And it's wrong and unfair, imo.

Here's the dichotomy:

Husbands with cheating wives can dump them freely, since a woman has no right to embarrass her husband in this manner. However, if the man forgives her, he can be lauded.

Wives with cheating husbands, while being wronged, should still have the decorum to not make an issue of it and just deal with it.

Now imo, this is grossly unfair to women, in both cases. And I would argue that in the specific movement of feminism, adherents agreed: both were unfair to women in general. So, women who meekly went along with this were--by their actions--not helping the movement, at all. In fact, they were perpetuating the role of women as second class citizens.

[Bird of Prey]

Originally Posted by robeiae

Probably not. In fact, he might get some sympathy for having a "cheatin' wife,"--the poor guy--that he chose to stick with so his kids could still have their mommy.

THAT is a stereotype. And it's wrong and unfair, imo.

Here's the dichotomy:

Husbands with cheating wives can dump them freely, since a woman has no right to embarrass her husband in this manner. However, if the man forgives her, he can be lauded.

Wives with cheating husbands, while being wronged, should still have the decorum to not make an issue of it and just deal with it.

Now imo, this is grossly unfair to women, in both cases. And I would argue that in the specific movement of feminism, adherents agreed: both were unfair to women in general. So, women who meekly went along with this were--by their actions--not helping the movement, at all. In fact, they were perpetuating the role of women as second class citizens.

Well, I agree that Obama would have all kinds of sympathy, and that's pretty much all I agree with. Professional women have just as much right to make personal choices - without being judged by those personal choices - as a man, assuming those choices are not illegal nor could affect their judgment on the job. What Hillary Clinton chose to do was stick with him. I know all kinds of professional women who have done the same for an assortment of reasons. I would never condemn them for it or frankly, analyze it. It's their choice.

[robeiae]

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

Well, I agree that Obama would have all kinds of sympathy, and that's pretty much all I agree with. Professional women have just as much right to make personal choices - without being judged by those personal choices - as a man, assuming those choices are not illegal nor could affect their judgment on the job. What Hillary Clinton chose to do was stick with him. I know all kinds of professional women who have done the same for an assortment of reasons. I would never condemn them for it or frankly, analyze it. It's their choice.

I'm not condemning anyone. And I agree that it's a matter of choice. But with regard to feminism, proper there is a view that has been offered on this since the beginnings of the movement, a view that was not applied to Hillary.

I'm not sure why it's such a struggle to come to grips with this. You can still say you disagree, that it's a private matter. But you can't set aside reality.

[WendyNYC]

Originally Posted by cethklein

"follow me because I'm a woman" mentality. No her personal life SHOULDN'T be a factor, it's her hypocrisy that should be though.

Where is she saying this? I've never felt this was her campaign message.