Be the Spark!

contribute now

Clinton and the Generational Gender Divide 

AIR DATE: Friday, April 4th 2008
Download the mp3 for this show.
Clinton and Gender in Oregon

Senator Hillary Clinton is coming to Oregon this weekend. In anticipation of her visit we're looking at how gender has played out in this long run to the presidential nomination. And how women as a whole are succeeding, and failing, in today's so-called post-feminist era.

Senator Clinton has been described by some as "the feminist dream incarnate." Others think that's bunk. They say women are doing just fine today, thank you very much. They believe we don't need to elect a woman as president just to prove equality.

And those differences are -- often -- marked on generational lines.

Pioneering women, like the Honorable Betty Roberts, feel compelled to vote for her because she is a woman. They look back at how hard they worked to break through the glass ceiling and feel they need to support Senator Clinton's push through the highest ceiling of all.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are the young women who are agitated by the fact that gender is even an issue. They don't necessarily describe themselves as feminists, and they certainly don't feel obliged to vote for Clinton because she is female.

What does this generational divide on gender say about feminism today?

This has been dubbed the "post-feminist" era (and also, among many other designations, Third-Wave Feminist). What does that mean to you? As a woman, or a man, do you consider yourself a feminist? Or is that is a dated term? Do you believe men and women are truly equal today?

Photo credit: Daniella Zalcman / Flickr / Creative Commons

I am a 31 year old woman and yes I do consider myself a Feminist - a strong Feminist. However, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton and to me that is a testament to true Feminism. Why would I vote for a candidate solely because she is a woman? I would never have voted for Elizabeth Dole. I am a Democrat, and I like Barack Obama. I feel inspired by him and he makes me feel hopeful when I haven?t felt hope in 8 long years.

Now, what angers me about this election is the fact that the criticism Hillary Clinton does receive is typically sexist. Things like her crying, her haircut, her outfits ? and the not so subtle nagging women stereotype. This to me shows how much sexism is still rampant and acceptable in this country. The reason I won?t vote for her is because I don?t feel like I can trust her. She is pandering and she hasn?t denounced this catastrophic war.
samantha.shaub —
I am 31 and do not consider myself a feminist. I was raised in a "mixed household" with one Democratic parent and one Republican. I have never joined a party, although I am politcally active and have been involved in campaigns for candidates in both parties.

However, I do feel that voting for a woman or a man of mixed race is an important choice. If only one of them were running, I probably would feel an obligation to vote for them on the basis of the "ceiling" they would be breaking. It is both wonderful and heartbreaking that we have two qualified candidates who inspire their constiuencies. I don't see them as being equally qualified, and that is why my vote would go for Hilary if I was allowed to vote in the Democratic primary. (I don't see breaking my refusal to join a party for the last 13 years now.) If she is the Democratic nominee I will vote for her in the general election.

I will feel much more torn if Obama and McCain are running against each other in the general election. I don't consider Obama as good a leader as McCain, and I feel pushed by the media to vote for him because it would be "historic." I personally hope that a ticket with Hilary as President and Obama as Vice-President will be an option. That is a ticket I could vote for without hesitation.
JuliaMJK —
Before this LONG nominating process began I didn't like Clinton and had I read Obama's books with enthusiasm and told my daughter about him. I thought I would be all for him, but his behavior toward Clinton during some of debates changed my mind. (I don't think he "gets" what racism and sexism share in common!) Clinton has impressed me with her resilience and total command of the issues of substance. Obama has been eloquent but not as informed as Clinton. (But as politicians they are both "spinmeisters" of the highest order. Obama is just smoother at it than Clinton.)

Anyone who thinks that discrimination against women is a dead issue is as naive as anyone who thinks that racism is a dead issue. You don't have to go far to see that both prejudices are alive and well in the new millennium.

As a news junkie who listens avidly to OPB and NPR I have heard countless pundits compare Obama to JFK, but I have never heard one of them say the obvious: We cannot compare Clinton to any former president because we have never had a woman elected or even get within smelling distance of a nomination! We haven't even had a woman V-P.

It's interesting that the difference in race between JFK and Obama does not deter such comparisons. Yet if Obama were a tall, mixed race, inspiring FEMALE presidential candidate, would anyone be comparing Obama to JFK? I doubt it. As my mixed race daughter told me when I was musing about all this, "Mom, don't forget that Black men got the vote before women. Men belong to the club of male privilege. Some men are more privileged than others but they will let in another man before they let in a woman." But having made that observation, she's voting for Obama. (She doesn't like Clinton because "she did a Tammy Wynette and stood by her man" and hasn't watched the debates because of a hectic schedule.) I will probably vote for Clinton.

It would be great if Clinton and Obama could work together on a joint ticket, but I cannot imagine that happening. Not because of generational differences but because of gender--he would try to patronize her as he did during some of the debates and she would never go for being patronized.



kiernan —
Hillary may be an example of success and achievement for some women.
However, as a Caucasian, working, college educated, registered Democrat, over 60 years old, mom and grandmother, I will not be voting for her.
Here are a couple reasons for my ?no? vote.
I was and remain concerned about her professional and ethical handling of real estate matters in Arkansas before and after her husband?s election.
She was non-compromising while working at health care reform after her husband?s election.
I am very concerned about examples of when ?we? were in office! If she were elected will ?we? be the president?
How quickly forgotten are the Clinton administration nightly bombings of Iraq, and his political policy that allowed continued persecution of the Iraqi people but kept the oil flowing.
I feel that her handling of the Monica situation is a poor example of how a successful leader would face a crisis, deal with it and move on. She lost, she did badly, and Bill?s unique smirk ness, continues on the current campaign trail to rub her and our noses in it.
She is a successful woman, but is still heavily harnessed by the glass ceiling and has comprised and taken the easy road to get that success.
Not the person I want as the president.
MeMe08 —
Saying that you won't vote for someone because you would have dealt with infidelity in a different way seems VERY sexist to me. I dealt with it in a different way, but I would never blame a woman who decided that her spouse was working on their marriage enough to stay. Suggesting that there is something wrong with a woman who makes her marriage work, even under the scrutinary of judgemental people like yourself, is a tribute to her.

I also wanted to point out something that made me laugh from your post. You first say, "She was non-compromising while working at health care reform after her husband?s election." You then go on to say later in your post that "She is a successful woman, but is still heavily harnessed by the glass ceiling and has comprised and taken the easy road to get that success."
So, she is non-compromising and compromising, and that makes her a bad choice for president?
JuliaMJK —
In reply to MeMe, how sad that we remain so swayed by media, old paradigms, and fear. Can you be more specific about her handling of real estate matters, apropos of the current situation brought on by our current leaders? How do you know she was she non-comprimising, when any efforts she made where broadsided? Wow about the oil, don't even know what to say about that. And what would you do if you understood that your husband made foolish personal decisions? Divorce, like bankruptcy, has become common place in this country. So sad.
sarafromportland —
As much as I like to see equality in our nation, I do not believe that parts of our world is ready for a woman to be president of the United States, the strongest nation on earth. Foreign affairs are one of my reasons to elect our next official and in no way am I trying to discredit senator Clinton however in our world today, in Muslim nations, women do not get the respect they deserve. Women are not allowed to drive cars or show there faces or ankles in some places and unfortunately these nations are the places that I think we need to make the most efforts in patching up bad relations that the current administration has formed. I think it?s horrible that these conditions exist but the fact is that they do and I do not think that we will get the respect that we deserve from them if we elect a woman as our leader. At this point, we have too much to loose on a global level to elect Hillary as our leader no matter how qualified, experienced, or electable she may be.

I also think that Hillary has shown her true colors trying to get Michigan and Florida?s votes counted when she agreed to have them omitted. I also think that if Obama said that he had experience in birthing children because he was there when his kids where born, like Hillary has experience in running a nation because she was there when her husband was the president, every woman and most men would think he is crazy.

Beesee —
I am amazed at the level of sexism that exists right here in our own country. Why would the bad behaivor of other nations make it okay for us to be sexist? Would you say that other countries should also not elect women to leadership roles until all countries will do it? Would you like to go back to Apartheid and slavery because there are those who still believe in it? Or maybe we could go back even farther and take away the rights of everyone who doesn't own land?

If we are not willing to move forward, we will go back. Hillary is just as capable of making global relationships work as the idiot currently in office who has bungled just about every one. The Middle East will care more about the US doing the right things, and the policies of the next president than their gender or race.
JuliaMJK —
In response to Beesee, I just returned from a trip abroad, one of many I make yearly, and this country does not realize how much respect the Clintons garner. Obama is a curiousity, Hilary Clinton is seen as a world leader, much like Merkel of Germany. Stop falling for the obvious.
sarafromportland —
I am a 29 year old woman and will be voting for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming primary, much to the dismay of my friends and boyfriend, all Obama fans. Much of my support for Hillary is because I feel it is my duty as a woman to support the first viable female presidential candidate the U.S. has ever had and might have in a long time. But, I also feel she is the better candidate and brings much more experience and knowledge to the table than Obama.

I have been appalled at the blatent sexism I have seen in the media and among friends and co-workers, male and female alike. I have heard comments about her appearance, body, and even sexuality that have absolutely nothing to do with her ablility to be president, and I feel equivalent comments about Obama's race would never be accepted.

I never thought of myself as a strong feminist, but seeing the way Clinton has been treated has made me more aware of the pervasive gender discrimination that is not far beneath the surface in my own life. I have also been disappointed in the reactions of my female friends, some of whom have judged her even more harshly because she is a woman, such as refusing to support her because she never left Bill or saying that she is not "feminine enough".

I truly believe Hillary Clinton would make an excellent president if given the chance. But, I also worry that if she were elected, her actions would be scrutinized and judged far harsher than those of a man. It saddens me to think that an intelligent, powerful woman is still such a threat to "the establishment" that they will do anything to bring her down.
bonnie37 —
Being a feminist, in my mind, has little to do with voting for a woman just because you are a woman. Many prominent men are staunch feminists, like Alan Alda (Hawkeye Pierce of M.A.S.H. fame). My son would easily rank among men who are strong feminists, yet he is supporting Obama, while I am supporting Hillary. Which brings me to an interesting question...

I'd like to know how many adult Obama supporters are still living with (and benefiting financially due to it) their Hillary supporting parents? My son got to college greatly due to his Pell grant, which was a Clinton program. The low interest loans he was able to obtain were likewise Clinton programs. I wonder sometimes if he truly realizes the amazing benefits he received as the result of the Clintons occupying the White House. Well, I do, and I want them back.
caseyjmc —
Um, I got Pell grants and low interest student loans during the Johnson administration. Those are old programs, like me. It's Bush who has destroyed these long standing programs.
mcnamarm —
The idea of hope is so intoxicating to people that they are willing to trun a blind eye to the realities that exist in this country. Black men had the vote before any woman, black or white. Pin your needs on an anecdotal idea of hope, and the cruel facts of inequality that make up the very fabric of this country are overlooked. We live in a gender unequal race unequal, economic unequal society. At least Hilary Clinton doesn't pander to the patriachal structure tht got us there in the first place.
sarafromportland —
I am a relatively young feminist, and I'm voting for Obama because I feel he's the better choice. He's more electable and seems more genuine. (With good reason, some loyal Republicans are switching over temporarily in order to vote for Hillary in primaries--Obama is much more of a threat.) I don't want to be a part of handing over another election to the Republicans. I'd love to see a woman become president, but now doesn't seem to be the right time. Soon, hopefully.
smharde —
Folks,

Our hope is to move away from a focused discussion of Clinton, Obama, and the 2008 election by 9:30 at the latest -- and to start talking more about how your own experiences (at the workplace, at home, on the ballfield, in the supermarket aisle) have shaped your political and social views. We might circle back to talk about the election, obviously, but you shouldn't feel that the show is limited to a Clinton-centric discussion.

I hope to see more men writing in, too!
David Miller —
How very, very ironic that you are even having a show on this topic. I challenge Think Out Loud to a show on the racial divide and whether people feel the "need to elect a" black man "as president just to prove equality." The standards of OPB and NPR are egregiously hypocritical on this issue. Anyone asking whether Obama is receiving support because he is black is immediately censored on NPR as a racist. This absurdity and lack of critical thinking is deplorable.

This shows existence answers your questions. Thankfully feminists are at least honest enough to admit that Hillary's underdog status is some part of the attraction.

NPR really should be ashamed - it's "dumb objectivity" on this topic, on this show and others, is debased and pathetic.

-Portland, Oregon
scottmil —
I'm a guy who became a feminist. I worked with a woman who repeatedly told me how she wasn't a feminist, so I became one to make up for her stupidity. There are few things worse then women who go around declaring they aren't feminists. All women reap the benefits from the sweat and tears of the pioneers and revolutionaries of the past.

Perhaps these abstainers think you have to be militant or angry to support the rights of women? Who would dare declare in public that they didn't support the civil rights movement or the rights of racial minorities?

-Portland, Oregon
scottmil —
Bravo, scottmil.
sarafromportland —
Those who follow pioneers in most forms of endeavor - such as the liberation of women in the U.S. - are usually impatient of, and lack understanding of the trials of those who have achieved what the younger are taking advantage of. This is frustating to the older folks, but are natural.

They are totally unaware of the idea that girls do not study math, science, etc. They cannot become lawyers, doctors, vets, whatever. On a more humorous side, they do not understand that girls cannot run the length of a basketball court, so in a girl's basket ball game, there were 3 forwards and 3 guards, neither of which could cross the center line. As a girl who grew up on a farm and was considered to be my father's oldest son, I frequently found these ideas ridiculous and frustrating - but I sort of did my thing (athletics, math major, etc.) and survived.

Women's Lib, as it was caused, does have one large area where the current and future generations may lose out. That is the area of abortion. While I never considered an abortion (even when becoming pregnant a bit early - no pills yet), I definitely consider having the choice to be critical. No one else's religious beliefs should infringe on the rights of my daughters, granddaughters or anyone else's.

As far as Hillary is concerned, the U.S. has never had a woman as president or vice-president. Other countries - Germany, United Kingdom, Liberia, Chile, New Zealand, India even Pakistan have had female leaders. I am probably missing some. The U.S. has not achieved that objective. Isn't it time?

It is unfortunate that this election has the possibility of two earth shattering possibilies - a woman or a black. Either would be amazing achievements.

Another real problem I have with the 2008 elections is the number of Hillary or Obama backers who say if their candidate doesn't obtain the nomination, they will either not vote or will vote for McCain. I cannot think of anything more immature and self defeating.

This election is not about Hillary or Obama. It is about the future of the United States. Our country and its democracy has been terribly damaged by the last 7 years of conservative control - not leadership. It is problematical that we can survive another 4 - 8 years of conservative control and may easily end up being being just another very large banana republic. McCain doesn't even believe in birth control, for God's sake.

Personally, even though I was formerly a Republican, I will vote for which ever Democrat is nominated. That is how anyone who truly cares about the U.S. should behave. There should not be any of this "take my marbles and go home" attitude.
frmrrepub —
As a strong, independent woman, it irritates me that women are still singled out as anomalies for achieving statuses such as Hillary Clinton's. Every time that the media or the public comments that it is unusual for a woman to be president or a CEO, it is sending a message that this is not the status quo. I would like to see gender become a non-issue, and that women of all characteristics exist as the norm in our society.
ktkatekate —
It is sad that the USA follows (rather than leads) other democracies in electing a woman to its highest office. The UK, Israel, India, and Pakistan come to mind as leaders in this regard.

Hillary Clinton is provably more experienced and better qualified than Barack Obama. However, Obama has neutralized racism by defining himself in a way that promises benefits even to racist Americans. Hillary must neutralize sexism by defining herself in a way that promises benefits even to sexist Americans.
mspandit —
I think it's way past time we see more women in positions of power in politic - such as the role of President. However, I don't feel particuarly good about this woman (Hilary clinton.) She would be so divisive. The mouthy conservative talk show hosts certainly don't need the fodder. We need someone who can bring the country together. I'm female, but I just can't see voting for a person simply because of their sex. They need to be a good candidate as well. I just don't see that with Clinton. Also, the aura of entitlement she projects mostly just turns me off.
FrancyBee —
I don't understand why everyone says that Hillary is so divisive. I don't think most people know why she is so divisive other than that the media keeps telling us that she is.
NorbertOR —
Republicans dislike the Clintons as much as Democrats dislike George Bush. We have had 20 years of "love him" or "hate him" presidencies and that is why the country has become so divided. America needs a change so that we can move away from this 2 family control. As an example my 76 year old Wyoming Republican mother said she would vote for Obama, but would like to leave the country if Hillary Clinton is elected. The same response many Democrats had when George Bush was reelected. If anything is going to bring out the Republican voters it will be the chance to vote against Hillary. Why do you think that Rush Limbaugh is wanting her stay in the race?
cjcuddihy —
I am a feminist of a certain age who was active from the beginning, but to me feminism means that I assume males and females are equally potentially qualified, so I just look at the individuals. And I think Barack Obama is more what the country needs right now.

We have to think of what gender means. In some ways her campaign seems more masculine (attacking, borderline dirty tricks, insinuations) and his more feminine (conciliatory, understanding, mediating). From my point of view, Hillary is the good old boy, insider, battle scarred, politician. Barack is younger, and because of his mixed, international background almost uniquely able to rise above the fray.

This has become a small, immensely interconnected, dangerous world and (despite our lagging behind many nations who have had female leaders), I think Obama would be more favorably viewed abroad because of his background and desire for rapprochement (sp?).
Since America seems to be in a real mess, which seems overwhelming, he is the one to me that is most likely to motivate us to believe that we can do something about it. We are going to have to make tough choices and change our ways of thinking, and I hope his oratorial skills (a la JFK), ability to step back and see the larger picture, ability to understand his enemies, and unruffled demeanor will help us believe change is possible.

For all these reasons, I have chosen Barack despite his being a male and the internal and external pressure to back the woman.
dlchilds —
I feel that our international reputation as the leading nation of opportunity and equality suffers because we have not had a female president. If Chile and India can embrace females as top leaders, why can?t the United States?
adexter —
I'm a 36 year old male, living in Portland but from NY State. I was for Ms. Clinton because I enjoyed the ?Clinton Years? and I did not even vote for him. My co-worker opened me up to Mr. Obama?s words and I now have to separate the differences. Mr. Obama gives great speeches and has great idea?s, but Ms. Clinton has much more experience in the White House. What is a white boy too do?
EddieG —
I am a retired university professor, community volunteer, wife, mother grandmother, a woman of accomplishment and not a feminist in the way that many describe feminism. There are various ways to describe feminism and the only one with which I identify is the one that stresses the need for equal opportunities for all...for girls and boys, for people of all hues and ethnicities and social classes and al religious persuasions. Women ARE capable and deserve choices about the direction that their lives take.
grandmaprof —
Please in the name of credibilty, if you are going to quote a writer pick someone that acutally has some sort of journalistic credentials. Maureen Dowd is NOT a good journalist. She makes up stories, she lies, and she makes it very clear is very partisan(hint:she's not a democrat).
Frostfly —
Why does this generational divide exist over Hillary? Because older women have been in the work force long enough to encounter the glass ceiling and to witness first hand that the old boys network is still alive and well. The younger generation only see that opportunities for women abound - but those opportunities only go so far over time.
ndcohrs —
I genuinely agree that older women like myself (61) have seen us come a long way. I personally have never hit the "glass ceiling" more than my male counterparts. I've had paying jobs when my male friends have been on the street because I could easily take a job as a Secretary. Computers opened to women immediately because we typed, and data entry was typing and "below" the male Engineers I worked with. Still, you have to be prepared to take the "luck" when it comes around. Too many women hid in the housewife/mother image instead of preparing themselves even in high school to succeed in a world where working outside the home is the norm.
wandapease —
My Grandmother received her teaching degree in 1898; my mother graduated from Pharmacy school in 1934 from Oregon State College (then). I graduated from University of Concordia here in Portland in 1996 (took 30 years, but I did it). My niece graduated from MIT the same year as an Engineer and is a real Rocket Scientist.
My taking a lot of time for my degree and efforts was my choice, not gender bias.
It takes Guts to succeed, either male or female. I was never discouraged from doing anything because I'm a woman in my 60 years. Presidential power is being drastically abused right now. The next President has to be ready to return us from a dictatorship (the President's word is law) to a Democracy. That's going to take the help of the members of Congress who have wet noodles where their spines should be. The President should be one/third of the equasion. The only question has to be who has the grit to do the job.
wandapease —
Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

I call women 'sweetheart', 'gorgeous', etc when at the store, or ordering lunch. I don't consciously do it - its just a part of my speech.

The intended purpose is to bring a smile - a little positive reinforcement here & there. If an individual takes it the wrong way, thats too bad.

Are we NOT supposed to tell the women we encounter that they are beautiful? Generally they are...
Chad Balcom —
I am a 41yo male and what you're describing is essentially a form of systematic discrimination. It seems innocuous, but you are re-inforcing a stereotype by re-inforcing that the looks of the women you meet are the first thing that you judge them on. Do you greet all of your male friends with, "Hi handsome? Similarly, by addressing a woman with sweetheart, you're assuming a level of familiarity with a stranger that shows a lack of respect and assumes superiority. It would be the same if you went up to a man that you didn't know and greeted them with, "Hi there, little guy"
I understand that you don't believe this to be degrading because this is the way you were raised, but I believe that you really are perpetuating sexism.
NorbertOR —
I'm a 41yo male, and I'm supporting Hillary because I feel she is best qualified to lead and most importantly clean up the current mess.
It would make me feel a bit better about the citizens of this country if she were elected president, because it would seem that the country is more progressive than I previously thought.
I don't care if the candidate is likeable. I don't understand the obsession some people have about electing a president that they would want to have a beer with. This is a very serious, very complex job and I don't feel that I have to like them, I want to respect them. Something I haven't been able to do these past 8 years.
NorbertOR —
Feeling obliged to vote for a woman because of her gender is as sexist as voting for a man because of his.

FatherJack —
I'm 38, and proudly consider myself a feminist, and I'd be thrilled to have a woman president. But not just any woman. For example, I'd [i]never[/i] vote for Condoleezza Rice. For me, it's about the [i]person[/i] and his or her policies and philosophies. While I'd be satisfied with Hillary if she's the candidate, I don't think she's the best candidate at this time.

The comment about Feminism giving us the option to choose a woman for president and [i]not[/i] choosing her really resonated with me.
RCCola —
[b]America Has Forgotten[/b] that the race for President is not and should not be about male v female or black v white -- but instead about what type of governance do we want? It look a women - Maine Senator Margret Chase Smith - to stand up to Senator Joe McCarthy from the floor of Senate to end McCarthyism!! We can look to Europe and other nations to see how differently women have governed compared to their male predecessors. Look at the achievements of you guest on the program and her achievements in state government - and the issues she focused on which have made us a better state and better society. Women make different choice and we must have different choices.
swshogren —
I am 27 and I do consider myself a feminist.
I worked as a legal secretary for an attorney who one asked me to call a client and apologize for a mistake that the attorney had made. The attorney told me that he believed it would be easier for the client to hear of the mistake coming from a woman and for me to make the apology, as though *I* had made the mistake, because women's voices are soft and so on. He put me in a very uncomfortable spot then, and he put me in many uncomfortable spots throughout the time I worked for him. I had to quit from that position. I couldn't tolerate that.
AlmondAmanda —
I lived the opening of our society to women as a new college graduate in 1969. As I listen to the radio conversation, I am dismayed that no one has noticed that women still earn far less than men for doing the same work, that there are very few women in elected representative bodies at the state and national levels and very few in top corporate positions, that there are still careers that are no-no for most women (engineer, auto mechanic, plumber, mathematics), that a vote for Obama means that once again, black men get the vote before women. So much complacency!!
cmg000 —
As women we have become unsensitized to the subtle sexism we face on a daily basis.

Here are some examples:
economist Caitlin Knowles Myers found that men ordering coffee get their java 20 seconds earlier than women, at least in Boston-area coffee shops. This delay didn?t seem to have anything to do with how complicated the drink order was.

gobytrain —
You forgot Ireland on your list, we have had two female Presidents.

Rory
in Portland
FatherJack —
Thank you, Justice Roberts, for all that you have done for women over the course of your career! It is because of you that we are even having this discussion -- that younger women don't necessarily see the need for feminism as a movement toward equal treatment and rights.

Growing up, I never saw or heard a woman news anchor on TV or radio. Images of women in the media were never professionals. I didn't know of women doctors, lawyers, dentists, carpenters, steel workers, mayors, governors, and only a very rare Congressperson. My teenage daughters are astonished to hear this. Thank you for reminding us of how far we have come, and of how much there is yet to do.
Oregonnative —
Are we talking about sex which the definition is: one of the two divisions of organic ...designated male or female. Or is it Gender which we use as a way to refer to social or cultural categories. There are more than just male and female. and to say that there are only two genders says that we must stay within our cultural bounds as to what is male and what is female. For example...We don't comment on what Obama is wearing but it matters that Hilary's pant suite matches her hair
paddlerbren —
We special needs people with severe disabilities (handicapped) can not get help when we flee from domestic violence LIFE THREATENING NEGLECT, abuse and homelessness. Oregon has got all that federal money and many of us still do not knowing how to read and write nor function in society?
Recently down town I found a Down Syndrome deaf mute BLIND mother WITH BABY was abandoned by her out-of-state husband. No one would help her!
Not even the government funded women's crisis center. When she was taken to the county Developmental Disabilities office she was referred to the governor's office. Then she was referred to various governors agencies. I heard various comments that it was ALL her fault that she and her baby were homeless.
Even the new supreme court access report of 2006 was supposed to help those of us with disabilities, but excluded me from any input the when the evaluation was being prepared!
So which presidential candidate will really context empower us with mentors?

David Beem
davidbeem —
Can I consider myself a supporter of women's rights even though I don't want to vote for Mrs. Clinton? My wife is struggling with how she will vote in large part because she really wants to see a woman president. Shouldn't we be looking at who will be the best person to do the job, rather than their race or gender? That involves temperment, experience, judgement, trustworthiness, and a whole host of factors. This year at this time, Obama is the better choice in my mind. I hope there is a woman candidate for president again who I can get behind, but it is not this year.
MarkDR —
Just tuned in and heard this excellent discussion. You have probably covered this, but if not, please address the subtle, insidious sexism Hillary Clinton (and many of us) face--which is based on society's double standard for women in terms of their appearance and "grit." Much more has been made of Clinton's appearance (from clothing to facial expressions) than Obama's. And, strong, calculating women are perceived as "bitchy," while men are "powerful" or "sharp."
rebecca anne —
I'm a 56 year old female feminist and will definitely vote for Clinton. So will my 23 year old daughter and 55 year old husband. It's time for a woman to be president, she's well qualified and has more experience than Obama. She's been vetted. This has its negative side too. Voting for Obama appeals to many as it's easier to think about just starting over with someone new, a clean slate. But he will make mistakes too, he is human. Though many act like he isn't.
jmcbride —
I vote for candidates based on who I think will do the best job for America. I was a Hillary supporter during the 1990's. She has turned much too conservative during the Bush administration, and backed off from positions she used to hold. I think Barack Obama will do a better job at uniting this country. He doesn't change his positions based on the way the political winds are blowing. I remember when Hillary voted for the Iraq War, and I just couldn't believe she'd fallen for that ruse. She did it to "look tough" and it was a huge blunder.
commentor53 —
I'm a 32 year old feminist and have been happy to identify as such since I was in middle school. I'm also the executive director of the Portland Women's Crisis Line, a 35 year-old feminist organization that serves survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

I can tell you that feminist movements are alive and well, and I'm lucky to meet feminists from all age groups, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and genders. Feminism is about treating each person with respect and dignity and striving to end the oppressions that plague our society. It also means that I get to pick the presidential candidate who best reflects my hopes and goals for this country; regardless of their gender.
rep.nickels —
As a twenty-something with a background in feminist studies, I'm fully aware that I grew up with the benefits that the feminist movement and civil rights movement reaped for me. But the feminism I believe in doesn't mesh with the notion that there's something innately "womanly" that a female candidate will bring to the Presidency. The feminism of my generation is BEYOND gender identities and gender roles. In this election, I feel more compelled to vote for my GENERATION than with my sex. Climate change, the occupation of Iraq, bad trade agreements... these are the important issues of this election- and it was Clinton & McCain's generation that got us in to a lot of these messes. It's an Obama generation that will have to get us out.
shecrafty —
I also am part of "Obama's generation." Is this something to be proud of? The bigoted views of Rev. Wright are definitely something I want to associate with. Oh how very modern. The popularity of a candidate based overwhelmingly on superficial reasons is also very clever and so today; just turn the reality-TV on.

We are so on the cutting-edge we are almost falling off. Not that much really changes, the telephone, e-mail, the I-Phone through which people are still having the same old loopy conversations. Our generation gives itself way too much credit!
scottmil —
I heard Gloria Steinem define feminism as "respecting the choices women make". I am thrilled with Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Arguments against her such as Bill will actually be the president, the world is not ready for a woman, Hillary has too much baggage, etc. are all red herrings that thinly veil the deep sexism that is still pervasive in our society. Such arguments fall away because of her intelligence, experience and leadership qualities. Even as a partner to Gov./Pres. Bill Clinton she has established her qualifications in her own right. I will be at her rally and will proudly vote for her. I am dismayed that during this campaign season the most ugly, obscene, verbally violent things that have been said about her are tolerated as "free speech".
cincykid —
Hi,

Just a couple of comments that may be helpful. Thank you for coming up with this show, it is very interesting.

I have tried to call the show many times and all I ever get is a busy signal so I am giving up the phone call idea. I am not sure how national shows avoid this, Maybe you could find out from the folks at the Tom Hartman show.

Please watch using leading questions. Maybe let guests know questions before show.

RESPONSE TO TODAYS SHOW: I am so tired of people in our country being afraid of strong women. Women are caught between a rock and a hard spot. If women show strength and confidence they often put down. If they show a gentle soft side they are considered weak or an air head. I am 53 year old woman and I am tired of feeling like I have to act a certain way to not offend people with my strength. It is time women claim their power and stop caring what others think or say! IT IS TIME FOR WOMEN TO MOVE ON FROM THESE DISEMPOWERING ROLES! WE ARE MUCH MORE THAN CAREGIVERS. I think voting Hiary will futher women's causes.

Thank you,
Sue





outloud —
I'm a 42 year old woman, and I am a proud feminist. But, I am sad to say, I do not plan to vote for Hilary Clinton. And I agree with the very first post -- I believe that reflects my feminism, for the same reason she cites: since I see women and men as equal, I can choose a candidate for reasons other than gender. I see Obama as being inspirational to a much wider range of people than Hilary is, and I believe that what our democracy needs most at this moment in history is inspiration among parts of our population that have been uninvolved and under-represented.
Margie Bird-Buendia —
Electing a female prez will only say to the world that we've finally caught up; Thatcherism is as old as Reganomics. Electing a racial minority, which as far as I know has never happened in a major country, will thrust us ahead among the progressive nations like going to the moon was a thumb of the nose to sputnik. I guarantee France would have no hope of electing a black president with a name like Barack Obama.

As far as Hillary goes, my beef has nothing to do with sex at all. My beef is that she is old school politics. Big Money from Big Corporations. She says she's a fighter, she fought for universal health care the first term of Bill's eight years, then let the money roll in from Big Pharm and Big Ins, hundreds of thousands each year for the next seven years, in exchange for keeping her mouth shut. What a fighter. For Wal-Mart.

However, I will vote for her if she SOMEHOW gets the nomination. One of the things I do like about Hillary is that she doesn't invoke God and Religion in her speeches, not that I can ever recall. I like that.
James B —
I am a strong and successful woman over 50 years of age. I have always worked in an industry that is considered a man's world. I would welcome a woman as President of the United States of America BUT I do not want Hillary to represent my sex or my Country. She has proven that she wants to win at any cost. Hillary has lied to us, resorted to dirty politics and shown herself to be less than honorable in her tactics. As an educated woman, I want a candidate who treats me like an adult and whom I can trust. Hillary is not that candidate.

By the way, you took the Maureen Dowd article out of context.
MarciaD —
At 28 years old I am a survivor of rape and domestic violence. A women elected as president, to me would mean that all women in our country would be safer, because it would to wash away the ascribed gender roles of men and women that support violence ( like Men being strong/Women being accommodating)
kerrilynne —
I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton. I'm 30 and I want to support a woman, but I don't think Hillary reflects my values. But as a Black woman, I can't ignore the role that plays as well. But being a Black feminist doesn't mean knee-jerk votes for women or people of color. It means supporting women's choices, whatever choice they make. After all, that's what feminists and people of color fought for, choices in their own lives to progress forward.
cook97203 —
Remember, we are voting for president. Which candidate has the best chance of bringing together disparate groups? Which candidate has the ethics and integrity to represent the U.S. best? Which candidate is most aware of the conditions and challenges that face U.S. citizens? Which candidate will propose the best solutions to these challenges? Sexism and racism are alive and well so let's not lose sight of the job at hand. Which candidate will be the best commander in chief?
trurl9 —
I can think of one instance in which male politicians and candidates have experienced gender discrimination, and that is in the national media attention paid to the cost of their haircuts. Both Bill Clinton and John Edwards have been publicly raked over the coals for having spent what some consider too much for hair care. I can assure you that what with regular cutting, artful touseling, and coloring, Hillary's hair upkeep runs well into the hundreds of dollars. Yet no one in the media, or outside it, would think to make an issue of it. Is this because some vestigial chivalry prevails, or is it because in our highly commodified culture a woman (but only a woman) is considered to be completely justified in spending whatever it takes in the pursuit of extended youth and good looks?
NellSimkoff —
Instead, the media has used her "constantly changing" haircuts to portray her as unstable. In fact, I think if you looked at the media attention over her "changing haircuts" you'd find there's been far more ink and far more broadband space spent on that topic than on the cost of Bill Clinton's, Edward's, Kerry's and every other male politicians haircuts combined.
jlfrederick —
I had a very similar experience at the University of Kansas in 1961 as Judge Roberts had at U of O. And, in virtually every professional job that I have held (in academia) I experienced blatant sexism.
I am donating money to Hillary (as much as I can) and voting for Hillary because she is the most qualified. If she is not the candidate, I will write in her name and vote for her.
Mary from Corvallis —
I am a 51 year old white male with a 7 year old daughter. I try to put her in front of as many strong women as possible. We do this without ever pointing it out to my daughter. I do not want her to think it is at all special that her priest, doctor, teacher, school principal and a presidential candidate are all women. To point out that these people are special because they are women might put the seeds of doubt in her mind as to what she can do with her life. I try to present Clinton as just another candidate, why should my daughter think it's any big deal? I am just another guy who will never understand what it is like to be a woman, but I am trying. Thank you.
AlWhitaker —
I am a 39 yo mad, and I will start by saying that I think both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are both excellent candidates, and think either would make a great president. From my perspective it is my duty to vote for the candidate who I believe will best represent our country for the next four years. For myself I have come to the decision that Mr. Obama is the best choice.

I dont think that gender has really played as a part in my decision- it is the result of listening to the candidates words, evaluating their decisions in the past.
Starkmojo —
One thing I did not hear in the discussion is the interaction in daily life between men and women. I thinks it is difficult for men who want to be supportive of women when they have no idea what sort of support women will find appopriate. The confusion in geender roles has left many men in a state of confusion. Professionally, that can come across as condescending, and in my social life, that can be extremely frustrating for all involved. I thank you for your attention to this topic, but I think that it needs much more examination - the issues for the "everywoman" are certainly not resolved.
Destonie —
I am a 60 year old woman who will be voting for Hilary Clinton. All her "unattactive"personality traits are the same ones which are OK in men. She has political baggage, just like men politicians; she has compromised just like men politicians. It is time for all the blah, blah lame excuses against Hilary to just go away. I'm voting for her because she is a woman, and so is my 27 year old daughter. All this sexist talk against her has made us more determined to vote for her.
ardens —
I am a 37 year old woman, and I will most definitely be voting for Hillary. And, while I think feminists *can* vote for Obama, I do not think it is a feminist choice, in any way to do so. (A feminist can make a non-feminist choice without it calling into question her feminism, we all do it every day. But to claim that any choice made by a feminist is a feminist choice is ridiculous.)

I was also appalled by the Honorable Betty Roberts offensive and completely incorrect definition of feminism. Her outright dismissal of radical feminism (and radical feminists) was disgustingly offensive, but worse, it was not based in fact. Radical means "to go to the root." Radical feminists attempt to go to the root of sexism and to change things from that way. Radical has nothing to do with marching in the streets (feminists of every stripe -- radical, liberal, socialist, marxist, third wave, and on and on may march in the streets or choose to be activists in other ways), "man hating," or anything else. It was Radical feminists who wrote and enacted laws against sexual harassment, rape, domestic violence (and, in fact, who started the first domestic violence shelters). Radical feminists can be any woman -- straight or lesbian, mother or childfree, married, partnered, or single, a "rabble-rouser" or someone who works more behind the scenes. If you are going to have women on your show talking about feminism, they really should have their facts straight first, and they really should be knowledgeable and understanding of all forms of feminism. This sort of statement is appalling.

And finally, to quote the bumpersticker, "I'll be a post-feminist in the post-patriarchy."
jlfrederick —
One of the reasons I listen to this radio is the balanced discussions offered on most subjects.
On this particular subject, however, quoting the ubiquutus Maureen Dowd out of context without a contradictory opinion is hardly balanced.
One would not have to look far to find strong and lasting personal and political evidence of Senator Obama's strong and long-term support for women and women's issued.
His notable legislation is the Illinios senate on abortion rights, day car, education may be one place to start that investigation.
burlbus560 —
A hypothesis: The comments I see and hear from people who criticize Senator Hillary Clinton sound like they come from the play book the Republicans have been using against her since early in her days as First Lady. Too many people are looking at these criticisms and believing that they "are" Hillary Clinton. She continues to be criticized for her handling of the health care initiative. In contrast, in her autobiography she readily admitted that she made a huge mistake, that she learned a lot, and she will avoid repeating those errors. Her experience and seasoning will be a valuable asset as President.
Anne Whitaker —
Sexism and racism must be understood in terms of Human nature that is common to both sexes and all 'races'. Humans are basically 'majority makers'. They seek survival advantage with 'power'. But unlike a common bully, they often learn to do it with groups. The observation that these groups are superficially determined is more a commentary on the collective superficiality of the actors. The abuse of people outside any group, is a commentary on individual and collective shortsightedness / lack of cooperative imagination etc..

Consequently, people of good will recognize that any 'majority'- or more accurately, any source of power - will reflect the shortsightedness and self-interest that is human. We can speak of the natural tyranny of majorities, but it is ,potentially, any time one person or group has power over another.

Practically speaking, people of good will are always advocating for lifting up who ever is down, for whatever reason, at what ever time.
dirtguy —
Much of your comment is what I have been deliberating. To paraphrase, perhaps with less nuance: it is human nature to have a bias towards people like you? Is this a fair summary?

Is this too much credit you give to "people of good will" though? Lifting up whoever for whatever reason? Maybe: Lifting up whoever for whatever reason if the individual or group likes the "whoever" and the "reason."

How do we interpret what is simply innocent human nature versus what is xenophobia, irrational cultural bias, overreaching pride or simple jingoism? It seems like a delicate line.

Will this human nature evolve as cultures increase integration?
scottmil —
Let me try to put it another way. Roughly 500,000 years ago - with language and a few tools - we surpassed wolves in our ability to cooperate. We refined survival cooperation in groups of up to about 70 or so individuals. We were so successful at this level of specialization and cooperation that we outgrew the planet. By roughly 7,000 years ago survival competition between tribes started to become unavoidable. This is the point at which the tribal unit was in more and more places obsolete. Bigger groups had a survival advantage. These unnaturally large groupings devised all manner of things to hold these new survival units together. Customs, dress, flags, religions, laws, specialized enforcers etc.. The point I want to make with this sweep of pre-history is that as recorded history gets started, and up to our present time we are still basically designed to cooperate in groups of less than 70 people. Stick with me here.

Just like a tribe, the modern Nation State is still a cooperative survival unit. The important distinction it has with a tribe is that as it grows larger and more complex, more and more people are not aware of the cooperative relationships they have with the other members of the survival unit. In a tribe everyone is accountable. In a nation state, not so much. A nation state is, for most, a shored up alliance of convenience. Most people look for smaller groupings within the larger survival unit. The competition between these smaller groupings within the survival unit look very much like the competition between tribes that got started when habitable land became scarce 7,000 years ago.

Now as then, there is pressure to become bigger than the competition. Regardless of the ultimate size of todays identity groups, self-interest tends to be defined too narrowly for there to be any national harmony. And while there is no denying the pressure to become bigger, it is still a reach for tribally adapted man. All the usual tricks get employed, i.e., superficial appearances, creeds, beliefs etc.. I'm not saying it should be different. To not compete in this way would be suicide.

More directly to your questions. Human nature is not so much innocent as it is maladapted to the size of the current competitive survival unit. The reality of competing interest groups speaks to our limitations regarding both far sightedness and cooperation. Integration helps people to have more diverse looking interest groups, but does not help the problem of interest groups being overly narrow. We are indeed tribal.

Further, self-interest can not be eliminated, only moderated. Everything that lives, does so at the expense of something else. Vegans draw the line after vegetables. Others with "dumb" animals. And that is just what we are willing to sacrifice for our food. When it comes to our comforts and entertainment, what else might someone tolerate? Slavery? Child labor in a third world country? Subordinating women?

It is because this line is repeatedly drawn in selfishly shortsighted ways, by so many, with members of our own species, that we have a problem.

Because someone is in a weak position makes them vulnerable to the selfish, short-sighted self-interest of lots of very human and often distant people. That doesn't mean todays vulnerable wouldn't do the same to someone weaker or more vulnerable than they are. But likewise no one deserves to be victimized.

It is not a matter of saving the good people from the bad people! Everyone is vulnerable at times, and everyone is shortsightedly selfish at times. The commitment we make is to protect those who need protecting, when they need protecting.

A big part of this we do with laws. But laws don't even have a chance if there is not already the will of a sizable group to step in to protect those who need protecting.
dirtguy —
I am a 26 year old man, and I do consider myself a feminist. However, the idea to promote or discriminate against a person based on their gender goes against feminism, and equality. It does not help promote it. That being said, I will not be voting for Hillary, and it has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. Feminism has become a dated term, and has come closer to an all encompassing equality issue, rather than solely a gender divide.
AnUpstartCrow —
I am a 35-year-old white woman, a Feminist, and an MBA running my own small corporation now. I feel very strongly that we need to judge people based on their merits rather than their gender or race. America and the world are absolutely ready for a woman President. We are also ready for a black President. I don't feel that either would pose a problem with credibility at home or abroad. There is simply no evidence to suggest otherwise.

I have looked at both candidates very carefully and based on both words and deeds, I have chosen to support Barack Obama. I reject that idea promoted by some that we should vote for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman. Inherent in their arguments, often expressly stated, are gender-based assumptions about her personality and what kind of leader she would be. Isn't true Feminism the fight against prejudging people based on their gender?

Of the two candidates, I have found it is Obama who believes in bringing all stakeholders to the table when it comes to developing solutions. This is a best practice of leadership that I learned in business school. Clinton has displayed a much more closed-door, top-down style of leadership. We saw this in her first, failed attempt to drive health care reform and many more examples since. I prefer Obama's consensus-building, bottom-up style of leadership.

I'm distressed to hear arguments about whether women or blacks have had the greatest barriers in life. Yes, these discussions are important when we approach solutions to these problems in our society. Yes, black voters had right before women voters. On the other hand, fewer black politicians have ever been elected to high offices such governorships or senate seats. What I want to know is, why should this make a difference in my decision of who to support for President? We should be voting on the qualities and merits of these two individuals. This is not "the person whose face looks like the most historically repressed group" contest, this is a contest for the leader of our country. May the best person win.

I worked at HP when Carly Fiorina was CEO. At the time, she was called the most powerful woman in America. Sometimes women asked me if I was proud to be working under her. The problem was, I had to say that she wasn't the best leader for the company. She was headstrong, power-hungry and believed in herself to a fault. (She was later ousted by the board for leading the company in wrong direction and not listening to voices that would have helped her correct the course.)

So, I say, yes, I want a woman to be President of the United States. However, I'm willing to wait until the right woman comes along. This year, I will be supporting the candidate that I feel listens best, builds coalitions best, and stays true to what he stands for best - Barack Obama.
aaghzl —
Black Americans are called a minority for a reason: because they are a minority of the US population - 12.2% (includes males/females). Women on the other-hand comprise 51% of the population of the USA (all races).

I think it wouldn't be a stretch to say women are underrepresented in US politics, more so then black men.
scottmil —
I am - so tired - of being expected to vote for Clinton simply because she's female. After studying her voting record, and knowing her past choices - she is not a Democrat but a Republican.

Give me a candidate of strength, who believes what other democrats do - and not just another politican. You want me to vote for a woman - give her those qualities. And frankly, I really wish Nancy Pilosi was running....... now THERE is a candidate to be proud to say you voted for.
selehka —

Comments are now closed.

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics