Anna Quindlen on Hillary

Revealing piece in terms of its honesty from a woman speaking to & for other women on their vision of a woman president.

Here's the key piece:

When we imagined a woman president we imagined a new day, a new strategy, a new vision and new tactics. Even when we said it was unfair to hold women to a higher standard than their male counterparts, in our hearts we did, whether they were running companies (more family-friendly policies and humane workplace conditions), editing newspapers (human-interest and service stories) or practicing medicine (patient contact and engagement).

I find the common thread of touch/relationality intriguing in all three of her examples. And especially the line about how the head knew one thing which the heart didn't go along with.

Quindlen's point as you might guess is that Hillary is none of those but rather a product of the system: well-oiled machine; army of pollsters; lacks honesty/sincerity.

I still think woman would vote in droves for Hillary. Even if they do feel this way--and I do believe Quindlen has hit upon a common enough feeling.

One point I would disagree with her (or rather seek to see the other side) is in the following line:

And every time Clinton is described as calculating or ambitious, you realize that such words are never used for male politicians because for them both traits are assumed—and accepted. Old habits die hard

The use of calculating and ambitious may be assumed for men. But there is a corresponding term used for male politicians (meant to attack their manhood) that Clinton doesn't face with the same sting: flip-flopper.

Masculine energy (as opposed to men) is based on the ability to be unmoved. Courage under fire, etc. Unmoved in the face of external change. To see the end point and come hell or high water to achieve that end.

It is unfair that Clinton (and not others) gets the ambitious label. Just as it is unfair to give the flip-flop wimp label to men. But like it or not this is how it is going to go. As long as most people continue to confuse the energy (masculine/feminine) for the individuals (male-female).

I think also while Quindlen is basically right that Clinton is a product of the system and it is irrational (but still pulls on the heart) to imagine a woman somehow would change the system just because she is a woman, there is a difference between Clinton and a Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi. They ran and governed as purely Masculine in women's bodies.

Clinton while she certainly has plenty of Masculine in her (just as Bill had a great deal of Feminine), she does have through her experience of the 1960s, however weirdly it can come off at times (i.e. on The View) Feminine energy-identity. She would be the first major power woman leader (except maybe Angela Merkel? although she's pretty dour German Masculine herself) with a strong touch of the Feminine in a post-60s sorta way. For better and/or worse. But it's not going to change the whole system overnight.

tags technorati : hillary clinton

tags technorati : feminism